alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Director Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.39 
  
 Director Compensation 
  
 Under the ACE Limited 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan, director compensation, non-management directors receive $150,000 per year for their service as
directors. The Company pays 60% of this fee in the form of restricted stock units having a fair market value, based on the value of the Company’s Ordinary Shares, of $90,000. Beginning with the 2004 annual general meeting, these stock units are
awarded at the annual general meeting and will vest at the next annual general meeting. The remaining $60,000 of the annual fee to directors are paid in cash quarterly, following the general meeting. Committee chairmen receive committee chair
retainers as follows: Audit—$20,000; Compensation—$10,000; and other—$5,000. The Lead Director receives a retainer of $15,000, which is in addition to any retainer received as a committee chairman. All members of the Audit Committee,
other than the chairman, receive a premium of $10,000 per year and all members of the Compensation Committee, other than the chairman, $5,000 per year. Directors are not paid fees for attending regular Board or committee meetings, but in
extraordinary circumstances requiring many meetings, may be paid an additional $2,000 fee for each special Board meeting attended, at the discretion of the Chairman of the Board. The premiums for committee chairmanships, Lead Director, Audit or
Compensation Committee service and special Board meeting fees is paid quarterly in cash. Directors may elect to receive all of their compensation (other than for special meetings) in the form of stock units issued on an annual basis. Ordinary Shares
will be issued for stock units six months after a director’s termination from the Board. Until such Ordinary Shares are issued, the stock units awarded to directors may not be sold or transferred. When the Company pays dividends on its stock,
it will issue stock units to directors equivalent in value to the dividend payments that they would have received if they held stock rather than stock units. 
  
 In addition to the above described compensation, the Company has a matching contribution program for non-management directors pursuant to which the
Company will match director charitable contributions to registered charities, churches or schools up to a maximum of $10,000 per year, with a $5,000 maximum per organization.
#### § 29.22 Appeal inspector.

An inspector or other person designated or authorized by the Division to hear appeals under the Act and the regulations in this subpart.
NO. 07-10-0411-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011

_____________________________

NANCY LYNN TYREE,  

	Appellant 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,  

	Appellee

_____________________________

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

NO. 1189902D; HONORABLE MOLLEE WESTFALL, PRESIDING

_____________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_____________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL  and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Nancy Lynn Tyree pled guilty to the offense of possessing a controlled substance (marijuana) in an amount of 2,000 pounds or less but more than fifty pounds, and the jury assessed her punishment at ten years imprisonment.  Appellant argues that because the trial court failed to admonish her about her right against self-incrimination before pleading guilty and testifying at the punishment phase of the trial, both her plea and sentence “requir[e] reversal.”    We overrule the issue and affirm the judgment. 

	First, a trial court has no general duty to advise a testifying defendant represented by counsel of the defendant’s right to forego testifying.  Johnson v. State, 169 S.W.3d 223, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  That duty lies with the defendant’s counsel.  Id.  Nor must the trial court afford such an admonishment prior to accepting a guilty plea.  See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13(A) (Vernon Supp. 2010) (itemizing the admonishments that must be given before accepting a guilty plea); Delgado v. State, 849 S.W.2d 904, 906 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref’d) (stating that nothing in art. 26.13 nor in the case law requires a trial judge to admonish an accused who has pled guilty of his right against self-incrimination under the Texas Constitution before he testifies at a non-jury trial).

	Third, before appellant pled guilty at bar, the trial court asked whether she opted to do so because she was guilty and for no other reason, whether she understood “the implications of pleading guilty . . .,” and whether her “attorney thoroughly explained to you the rights that you’re giving up in pleading guilty.”  In response to each inquiry, appellant replied “yes ma’am.”  Next, appellant’s counsel was asked by the trial court whether he had “gone over the rights that your client is giving up.”  Counsel answered “Judge, we have . . . ” and that she was also aware of the range of punishment and that “she is fully aware and cognizant of what she’s doing today.”  The appellate record further discloses that during voir dire, in the presence of appellant, and before she testified in the punishment phase, the State told the venire:  “if you’re charged with an offense, you have the right to remain silent and not to say anything that can be used against you, right, a Fifth Amendment right.”  Given these circumstances, we cannot say that appellant’s plea and sentence are reversible because the trial court failed to inform her of her right against self-incrimination or that her plea was otherwise uninformed and involuntary.  

	Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

							Brian Quinn 

							Chief Justice

Do not publish.

2

3
CERTIFICATION



I, Christine Thomas, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I (we) have:



a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (Evaluation Date); and

c.

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b.

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were any significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.







/s/ Christine Thomas

Date: July 16, 2007

Christine Thomas, Secretary/Director

Chief Financial Officer
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 Report of Castle Arch Real Estate Investment Company, L.L.C. a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, Kirby D. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:  a. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  b. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Kirby D. Cochran Kirby D. Cochran, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Dated August 12, 2008
#### § 29.1116 Rule 10.

Any special factor approved by the Director of the Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, may be used to show a peculiar side or characteristic of the tobacco which tends to modify the grade.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984]
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 28, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00842-CV 

ANGELA ANDERSON, Appellant 

V. 

ARIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-06-12567-C 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated August 11, 2014, we informed 

appellant that the Dallas County District Clerk had notified the Court that the clerk’s record had 

not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record. We directed appellant to file written verification that she had paid for or made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or that she had been found entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that if she did not file the required documentation 

within ten days, we might dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, the clerk’s record 

has not been filed, appellant has not provided the required documentation, nor has she otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the clerk’s record. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). 

140842F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ANGELA ANDERSON, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00842-CV V. 

ARIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-06-12567-C. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee ARIEL FINANCIAL SERVICES recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellant ANGELA ANDERSON. 

Judgment entered October 28, 2014.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CURTIS ALEXANDER MOHAMMED,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASE NO. 4:19cv464-MCR-HTC

ALAN DAVIS,

Defendant.

/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated December 10, 2019. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). After

reviewing any timely objections to the Recommendation, the Court has determined

that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 5, is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this Order.
Page 2 of 2

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure

to prosecute and comply with a Court order.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this

case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of January 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 4:19cv464-MCR-HTC
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-GRJ-3

WILLIE BUD REED, JR,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Second Motion for Reconsideration. 

(Doc. 1468). Defendant requests the court to reconsider its October 4, 2012 order denying

defendant’s motion to reconsider the Court’s September 1, 2012 order denying motion for

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, defendant has simultaneously

filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (See doc.

1469). Despite defendant’s instructions to “hold [the notice of appeal] in abeyance pending a

ruling on his enclosed second motion for reconsideration,” (doc 1469) the Court lacks

jurisdiction to reconsider these issues.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s second motion for reconsideration (doc. 1468) is DENIED for lack of

jurisdiction.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2012

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C SECTION 350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oakmont Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006, (the Report), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael C. Azar, President, Secretary, Principal Accounting Officer and a Director 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2006



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael C. Azar                                        
|Michael C. Azar                                            
|President, Secretary, Chief Accounting Officer and Director
§ 28.911 Review classification. ( a ) A producer may request one review classification for each bale of eligible cotton. The fee for review classification shall be determined based on the formulas in § 28.116.
( b ) Samples for review classification must be drawn by gins or warehouses licensed pursuant to §§ 28.20 through 28.22, or by employees of the United States Department of Agriculture. Each sample for review classification shall be taken, handled, and submitted according to § 28.908 and to supplemental instructions issued by the Director or an authorized representative of the Director. Costs incident to sampling, tagging, identification, containers, and shipment for samples for review classification shall be assumed by the producer. After classification, the samples shall become the property of the Government unless the producer requests the return of the samples. The proceeds from the sale of samples that become Government property shall be used to defray the costs of providing the services under this subpart. Producers who request return of their samples after classing will pay a fee determined based on the formulas in § 28.116.
[74 FR 26772, June 4, 2009, as amended at 79 FR 67319, Nov. 13, 2014]
#### J. Manes Co., Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v Greenwood Mills, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 1, 1979, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Defendant-respondent-appellant Greenwood Mills, Inc. (Greenwood), a textile manufacturer, sold certain unfinished (greige) fabrics to Mill Fabrics Corporation (Mill), a textile converter, on a "bill and hold” basis, that is, they were stored at Greenwood’s premises subject to the order of Mill. The sales contract provided that Greenwood retain a security interest in the goods to the extent of Mill’s indebtedness to it. Mill never paid Greenwood for these goods, but sold them to plaintiff-appellant-respondent J. Manes Có., Inc. (Manes) which paid Mill in full for them. Subsequently Mill became insolvent and Greenwood refused to release the goods to Manes, asserting its security interest and sold the fabrics to a third party in satisfaction of Mill’s indebtedness. Manes brought this action which sounds in quasi contract for money had and received, since its cause of action for tortious *558conversion was barred by the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations. Subsequently, Manes moved for summary judgment relying principally on *Tanbro Fabrics Corp. v Deering Milliken*(39 NY2d 632), and Greenwood cross-moved for the same relief. Special Term held, basically, that triable issues of fact exist, and we agree. The record indicates that there are questions concerning choice of law, unjust enrichment and whether the sale was made in the ordinary course of business within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code and the custom and practice of the industry, which have not been resolved, which are disputed and which involve underlying triable issues of fact whose resolution is necessary before they may be determined. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 of (the “Report”) of Community Bankers Trust Corporation (the“Company”), the undersigned Executive Vice President, who is acting as the Company’s principal executive officer, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. 

/s/  Rex L. Smith,III                    

Rex L. Smith, III 

Executive Vice President 

(principal executive officer) 

/s/  Bruce E.Thomas                    

Bruce E. Thomas 

Executive Vice President 

and Chief Financial Officer 

Date: January 13, 2011
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.2  


 
  Schedule 1 to Exhibit 4.1
  Individual Deviations from Standard Management Board Services
  Agreement by Current Members of Management Board(1)    
    



	Name
 
	 	For reporting period
	 	Term; §1(i)
	 	Appointed by

Resolution of

Supervisory Board

dated; §1(i)
	 	Fixed Annual

Salary; §4(i)(a)
	 	Bonus;

§4(i)(b)
	 	Additional

bonus;

§4(i)(b) 2d.

par.
	 	Position;

§1(i)

	Kai-Uwe Ricke	 	1.1. to 31.12.2004	 	15.11.2002 to 14.11.2007	 	Nov. 14, 2002	 	1,250,000	 	1,250,000	 	20	%	Chairman
	

Dr. Karl-Gerhard Eick	
 	

1.1. to 31.12.2004	
 	

1.12.2002 to 30.11.2007	
 	

Nov. 28, 2002	
 	

937,500	
 	

937,500	
 	

20	
%	

Vice-Chairman
	

Dr. Heinz Klinkhammer(2)	
 	

1.1. to 31.12.2004	
 	

1.4.2001 to 31.3.2006	
 	

Apr. 13, 2000	
 	

750,000	
 	

750,000	
 	

20	
%	

Member
	

Rene Oberman	
 	

1.1. to 31.12.2004	
 	

1.12.2002 to 30.11.2007	
 	

Nov. 28, 2002	
 	

750,000	
 	

750,000	
 	

20	
%	

Member
	

Konrad F. Reiss	
 	

1.1. to 31.12.2004	
 	

20.1.2003 to 19.1.2008	
 	

Jan. 16, 2003	
 	

750,000	
 	

750,000	
 	

20	
%	

Member
	

Walter Raizner(3)	
 	

1.1. to 31.12.2004	
 	

1.11.2004 to 31.10.2009	
 	

Sept. 3, 2004	
 	

937,500	
 	

937,500	
 	

20	
%	

Member






	(1)
	Josef
Brauner and Thomas Holtrop resigned from the Management Board in 2004.



	(2)
	Since
Dr. Klinkhammer joined our Company on April 1, 1996, and is the most senior member of our Management Board, the wording of his agreement deviates from the standard
agreement in language, but not in substance, and certain details, which the Company believes are insignificant, differ from the standard agreement in sections 2(1), 2(3), 3(3), 4(1), 4(3),
4(4), 4(6), 4(7), 6(1), 6(3), 7(3), 8(2), 10, 12(2), 14(3) and in the post-contractual non-compete agreement. Also, the insurance amounts in section 7(1)(a) and (b) differ and are approximately
23.3% less.



	(3)
	Walter
Raizner was granted a 2004 bonus equal to 120% of two month's salary. 











QuickLinks


Schedule 1 to Exhibit 4.1 Individual Deviations from Standard Management Board Services Agreement by Current Members of Management Board(1)