alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit10_2.htm


    
      

    


    Exhibit
10.2

    


    McMoRan EXPLORATION
CO.

    DIRECTOR
COMPENSATION

    (as
of May 2009)

    


    Cash
Compensation

    


    Each non-management director and
advisory director of McMoRan Exploration Co. receives an annual fee of $40,000
for serving on the board.  Committee chairs receive an additional
annual fee as follows:  Audit Committee, $12,000; all other
committees, $6,000.

    


    Each
non-management director and each advisory director also receives a fee of $1,500
for attending each board meeting and each committee meeting (for which he is a
member) and is reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
attending such meetings.

    


    Equity-Based
Compensation; Deferrals

    


    The company provides equity
compensation to our non-management directors and advisory directors through two
incentive plans, both of which were approved by our
stockholders.  Under the plans, each non-management director and
advisory director receives an annual grant of options to acquire 3,500 shares of
our common stock on June 1st of each
year.  In addition, the nominating and corporate governance committee
is authorized to make additional equity grants to our non-management directors
and advisory directors at its discretion.  Pursuant to this authority,
the committee has granted each non-management director and advisory director
options to acquire an additional 1,500 shares of our common stock and 2,500
restricted stock units.  These grants will also be made on June 1st of each
year, unless the committee determines otherwise.  The options are
granted at fair market value on the grant date, vest ratably over the first four
anniversaries of the grant date and expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant
date.  The restricted stock units also vest ratably over the first
four anniversaries of the grant date.

    


    In
addition, our non-management directors and advisory directors may elect to
exchange all or a portion of their annual fee for an equivalent number of shares
of our common stock on the payment date, based on the fair market value of our
common stock on such date.  The non-management directors and advisory
directors may also elect to defer all or a portion of their annual fee and
meeting fees, and such deferred amounts will accrue interest at a rate equal to
the prime commercial lending rate announced from time to time by JP Morgan Chase
(compounded quarterly), and shall be paid out at such time or times as directed
by the participant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

VS CASE NO. 4:99cr16-RH

MARK ANTHONY JONES,

JUDGMENT

The Petition for Writ of Audita Querela is denied.

 September 22, 2011

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

s/Pam Lourcey

DATE Deputy Clerk: Pam Lourcey

Case 4:99-cr-00016-RH-CAS Document 135 Filed 09/22/11 Page 1 of 1
# 3.101 Standards of conduct.

- 3.101-1 General. 
- 3.101-2 Solicitation and acceptance of gratuities by Government personnel. 
- 3.101-3 Agency regulations. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 3.1 - Safeguards
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Terra Energy Resources, Ltd. formerly Terra Media, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas Monahan, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of   operations of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 21st day of October, 2008.   /s/ Thomas Monahan ----------------------------------- President, Secretary, Treasurer, Director, and Chief Financial Officer and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of ChiefExecutive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Section 1350)**

The undersigned,the Chief Executive Officer of TransMontaigne Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a)          the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005, filed onthe date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)         theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ DONALD H.  ANDERSON   |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Donald H. Anderson        |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|   | November 9, 2005     |

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 3405

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3405 appear at 76 FR 4808, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3405.8 Complementary project proposals.

Institutions may submit proposals that are complementary in nature as defined in § 3405.2(g). Such complementary project proposals may be submitted by the same or by different eligible institutions.
# 9.110           Reserve Officer Training Corps and military recruiting on campus.

- 9.110-1 Definitions. 
- 9.110-2 Authority 
- 9.110-3 Policy. 
- 9.110-4 Procedures. 
- 9.110-5 Contract clause. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors
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 Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (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 the best of his 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 operation of the Company.





/s/ DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Sole
      Member of the Board of Directors
              Dated:
      October 29, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              Dated:
      October 29, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              Dated:
      October 29, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      DENISE D. SMITH
              Denise
      D. Smith
              Principal
      Accounting Officer
              Dated:
      October 29, 2008




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arrow Resources Development,
Inc. (the Company ) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Peter J.
Frugone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
subject to the disclosure of deficiencies in the Company ’ s disclosure controls
and procedures set forth in Item 8A of the Report:





(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.




April 15,
2010





/s/ Peter
      J. FrugonePeter
      J. FrugoneChief
      Financial Officer
98-1456.

#### State v. Ayers.

Franklin App. No. 89AP-384. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                         __________________________________

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses 
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-63350, 
33-52517, 33-57049, 33-64449, 333-11395 and 333-11397) and in the 
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-10621, 33-21756, 33-34288, 
33-48858 and 33-54233) of United Asset Management Corporation of our report 
dated February 10, 1997 appearing on page 71 of the Annual Report to 
Stockholders which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We 
also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial 
Statement Schedule, which appears on page F-1 of this Form 10-K.

/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
------------------------

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 21, 1997
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.691 Responsibilities of RBIC during examination.

You must make all books, records and other pertinent documents and materials available for the examination, including any information required by the examiner under § 4290.620(c). In addition, the agreement between you and the independent public accountant performing your audit must provide that any information in the accountant's working papers be made available to the examiners upon request.
#### §§ 4287.125-4287.132 [Reserved]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SCOTTIE LEE WHITE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-6132 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________ ) Opinion filed August 27, 2014. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Linda Babb, Judge. Scottie Lee White, pro se.

NORTHCUTT, Judge. We affirm the postconviction court's denial of Scottie Lee Wh ite's petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the court appropriately treate d as an untimely motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. White cl aimed that the trial court committed fundamental error when it gave an erroneous instructi on on voluntary manslaughter, citing State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252, 257-58 (Fla. 2010). We write only to observe that the postconv iction court properly rejected this contention on the ground that the Montgomery case does not apply retroactively to cases that were final-2- before it issued. See Mendoza v. State, 93 So. 3d 458, 458 (Fl a. 4th DCA 2012); Harricharan v. State, 59 So. 3d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

Affirmed. SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
#### Mildred Brewer, as Administratrix of the Estate of Cynthia Butler, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v Jamaica Hospital et al., Defendants. Jamaica Hospital, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v City of New York et al., Third-Party Defendants. Jamaica Hospital, Third-Party Plaintiff, v Bohdan Dobias, Third-Party Defendant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 7, 1979, granting defendant’s motion to obtain authorizations from plaintiff to review hospital and clinic records of plaintiff’s decedent for the period of two years preceding decedent’s death, but denying so much of the motion as sought to obtain doctors’ reports concerning the injuries allegedly sustained by the decedent, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, so as to provide as follows: *852Plaintiff is directed to furnish defendant with authorizations to obtain copies of hospital, clinic and doctors’ records of treatment to plaintiffs decedent at the hospitals and places specified in the notice and to produce any available doctors’ reports relevant to the injuries allegedly sustained by the decedent, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed. The notice was given and the motion herein was made by defendant pursuant to CPLR 3121 to obtain authorizations to inspect relevant hospital and doctors’ records and for production of any existing doctors’ reports. Plaintiff, having instituted this malpractice action, has placed in issue the physical condition of the decedent (see *Koump v Smith,*25 NY2d 287, 292, 294; *Newman v Searle & Co.,*50 AD2d 902). Accordingly, the hospital records and records and reports of the treating physicians are proper subjects of disclosure *(Greuling v Breakey,*56 AD2d 540; *Moses v Woodbury,*54 AD2d 961). The request for disclosure need not be limited to the hospital confinement directly involved in this case *(Greuling v Breakey, supra,*pp 541-542; *Myers v Schneider,*59 AD2d 736) or to any arbitrary period (see *Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.,*21 NY2d 403; *Greuling v Breakey, supra,*pp 541-542). Moreover, plaintiffs failure to move for a protective order within five days after the service upon her of defendant’s notice constituted a waiver of any defects of deficiencies in the notice (see *Koump v Smith, supra,*p 299; *Greuling v Breakey, supra,*p 541; *.Coffey v Orbachs, Inc.,*22 AD2d 317). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Ross and Lynch, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Patrick Nannery, Respondent, v GAF Corporation, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 9, 1979. Claimant was classified as having a permanent partial disability following a compensable injury to his back in 1968. In 1970, he invested about $15,000 in a bar and restaurant and became the sole owner of the enterprise. At issue on this appeal is the propriety of the board’s award of continued reduced earnings after June 14, 1976 based on its finding that claimant’s "income from the business is profits and not wages.” In our opinion, its determination is not founded on substantial evidence. Claimant’s established average weekly wage during employment was $170.68. The disputed award covers periods in 1976 in which the net income of the business was approximately $10,000, as well as 1977 in which it was over $11,000. Additionally, claimant received other direct economic benefits from the venture and made capital expenditures from operating funds to enhance the value of his holding. In deciding whether a claimant’s disability justifies an award for reduced earnings, the board must consider actual earnings and may fix a reasonable wage earning capacity only if he has no actual earnings (Workers’ Compensation Law, § 15, subd 5-a). Here, the board set that capacity after deciding that none of claimant’s income represented actual earnings. Although the issue is generally one of fact *(Matter of Cozzi v Christensen & Nielson,*48 AD2d 720, 721), the testimony plainly reveals that at least a portion of claimant’s income was derived from his active participation in the business since he ordered supplies and served as a bartender on occasion. Accordingly, while claimant’s investment and supervisory efforts generated some unearned income in the form of profit, it was *698incorrect for the board to completely ignore such evidence in determining that none of the income constituted actual earnings. The demarcation between wages and profits may not be easy to ascertain when, as here, the total is so obviously composed of both elements, but it does not warrant a finding that there were no actual earnings whatever. Therefore, the instant decision should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings. Decision reversed, with costs to the employer against the Workers’ Compensation Board, and matter remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.
#### § 3418.1 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*1862 institution* means a college or university eligible to receive funds under the Act of July 2, 1862 (7 U.S.C. 301, *et seq.*).

*1890 institution* means a college or university eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321, *et seq.*), including Tuskegee University.

*1994 institution* means an institution as defined in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note).

*Formula funds* means agricultural research funds provided to 1862 institutions and agricultural experiment stations under the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a, *et seq.*); extension funds provided to 1862 institutions under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c)) and section 208(c) of the District of Columbia Public Postsecondary Education Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 93-471; agricultural extension and research funds provided to 1890 institutions under sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA)(7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222); education formula funds provided to 1994 institutions under section 534(a) of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); research funds provided to forestry schools under the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a, *et seq.*); and animal health and disease research funds provided to veterinary schools and agricultural experiment stations under section 1433 of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3195).

*Recipient institution* means any 1862 institution, 1890 institution, 1994 institution, or any other institution that receives formula funds from the Department of Agriculture.

*Seek stakeholder input* means an open, fair, and accessible process by which individuals, groups, and organizations may have a voice, and one that treats all with dignity and respect.

*Stakeholder* means any person who has the opportunity to use or conduct agricultural research, extension, or education activities of recipient institutions.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 30, 2021

t0322 

# Order

Clerk March 30, 2021

162545

JOHN O’BRIEN,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 162545

BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and

relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded tha t it should grant the requested

relief.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JESSE EDWARD MOODY, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv338-MW/HTC

MARK S. INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 28. Upon consideration, no objections having been filed 

by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 28, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21, is DENIED. This 

matter shall be remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings in 

accordance with this Order. 

SO ORDERED on April 6, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00338-MW-HTC Document 30 Filed 04/06/21 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6234

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WALTER EUGENE MOORE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CR-89-218-G, CA-96-369-2)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Eugene Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's supplemental recommendation, recommending denial of Appellant's motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997)). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337

U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of EntreMetrix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, George LeFevre, Chief Financial 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 Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:   December 17, 2007/s/ George LeFevreBy:  George LeFevreIts:  Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EntreMetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntreMetrix Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.