alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  

							
	



	  	 Domtar Corporation 
 Head Office

395 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West
 Montreal, QC H3A
1L6
 www.domtar.com
	  	 Domtar Corporation 
 Operations Center

100 Kingsley Park Dr.

Fort Mill, SC 29715-6476

www.domtar.com
	  	

 April 2, 2015 

Personal and Confidential 

Mr. Richard L. Thomas 
 Senior Vice-President, Sales
and Marketing, Pulp and Paper Division 
 Dear Dick: 
 This
letter confirms the discussions we had over the last few days. 
 During the transition to a divisional structure, your support and assistance in the
onboarding of our new divisional President, Mike Garcia, have been greatly appreciated. In recognition of your commitment, a one-time bonus in the amount of $466,700 will be paid in May 2015. 

This letter also confirms that effective April 8, 2015, you will no longer be part of the Management Committee but you will continue to serve in your
current position as Senior Vice-President, Sales and Marketing, Pulp and Paper Division, reporting directly to the President, Pulp and Paper Division. 

Under the circumstances, I want to provide you with an update on certain compensation elements, which were specific to your status as a member of the
Management Committee and which will continue in your current position. 
 Benefits and Perquisites 

You will continue to be entitled to the executive Health & Welfare benefits, including the additional executive officer life insurance and personal
accident insurance available to members of the Management Committee. You will also continue to be eligible for reimbursement of a maximum amount of $3,500 annually for financial counseling fees. 

DB SERP 
 You will continue to participate in the
DB SERP, which provides retirement benefits in conjunction with the savings that are available under Domtar’s qualified Pension and Savings Plans and DC SERP. As such, you will continue to earn credited service under the provisions of the DB
SERP as long as you remain employed by Domtar. 
 LTIP Grants 

You will continue to be eligible to receive annual LTIP grants in the same form as the members of the Management Committee, subject to the approval of the
Human Resources Committee, upon recommendation and at the discretion of the President and CEO. 
 Settlement of Long-Term Incentive (LTIP) Awards

 As you will no longer be subject to Stock Ownership Guidelines, any vested LTIP awards will be settled in cash, pursuant to Domtar’s Amended
and Restated 2007 Omnibus Incentive Plan and the relevant award agreements. 
 Severance Program 

Should your employment terminate in a manner that would qualify for severance under the Severance Program for Management Committee Members, you will be
eligible to receive severance under this Program. 







 This letter supersedes all prior agreements and correspondence with you regarding your compensation and benefits.

 Sincerely, 
  

	
	
	/s/ John D. Williams
	 John D. Williams
 President and
CEO


 Cc: Michael D. Garcia 

  

							
	2  		 	Page
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated July 13, 1999, except as to Notes 2 and 17, which
are as of May 16, 2000, included in the Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 4 of Coyote
Network Systems, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 1999 into (i) Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 33-88392), (ii) Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (File No. 33-57188) and (iii) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No.
333-1055).




ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Los Angeles, California
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 1 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 1

     Expressing the sense of Congress that an artistic tribute to 
    commemorate the speech given by President Ronald Reagan at the 
 Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987, should be placed within the United 
                            States Capitol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Allard submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
         referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of Congress that an artistic tribute to 
    commemorate the speech given by President Ronald Reagan at the 
 Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987, should be placed within the United 
                            States Capitol.

Whereas the people of the United States successfully defended freedom and 
        democracy for over 40 years in a global Cold War against an aggressive 
        Communist tyranny;
Whereas President Ronald Wilson Reagan's demonstration of unwavering personal 
        conviction during this conflict served to inspire millions of people 
        throughout the United States and around the world to seek democracy, 
        freedom, and greater individual liberty; and
Whereas President Reagan's determined stand against the Soviet Union during his 
        8 years as President served as the catalyst for the collapse of the 
        Soviet Union: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that an artistic tribute to 
commemorate the speech given by President Ronald Reagan at the 
Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987, during which he uttered the immortal 
words, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'', should be placed within 
the United States Capitol.
                                 <all>
```
(78 South. 424)

#### GRIFFIN v. STATE.

(4 Div. 528.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; A* B. Foster, Judge.

W. C. Griffin was convicted of violating what is commonly known as the tick law, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

D. A. Baker, of Troy, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W. W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of the offense of violating what is commonly known as the tick law. This appeal is on the record, and the material questions involved are identical with those passed upon and considered by this court at its present term in the case of Childs v. State, 78 South. 308.1 Under the authority of that case, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

1

 Ante, p. 392.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

140184 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140184 

 COA: 281196 

Wayne CC: 07-004196-01 

DOMINIQUE SENARIO WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
APPENDIX G: WRAP EDMS FLOW CHART
Data

Submitted for

each source

type (module),

for each State

and Tribe

QA/QC for Format

at data point of

entry (see section

3.12)

Is Format

Compliant?

QA/QC for Content

(see section 3.12)

Is Content

Complete?

Regional

Database

Finalized

Export and Query Standard Report in

Tabular, Simple Plots, Point-and-click

Maps, and GIS formats (see section

3.8)

CAC

Special Report

(see section 3.9.1 )

Pre-Trigger SO2 Annex

Special Report

(see section 3.9.2)

Mobile Sources

Special Reports

(see section 3.9.3 )

Fire Sources

Special Reports

(see section 3.9.3 )

WRAP reviews and fills

gaps based on default

and sends back with

analysis to STL agencies

for acceptance and

comments

Notify STL agency

of format non

compliance and

ask for correction

and resubmission

Others: Phase II

DBA Module

(see Section 3.11)

GIS Module

(see Section 3.10)

WRAP EDMS Flow Chart
#### LIMB, Treasurer, etc v CORNELL, et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Wayne Co

No 863.

Decided May 16, 1930

Marion F. Graven, Prosceuting Attorney, Wooster, for Limb.

L. D. Cornell, Shreve, for Cornell, et.

Funk, PJ., Pardee, J., and Washburn, J., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.28 DOL agency as organization holding funds of the debtor. ( a ) Whenever a DOL agency is holding funds of a debtor from which administrative offset is sought by another DOL agency or other Federal agency, the DOL agency holding funds should not initiate the requested offset until it has been provided by the creditor organization with an appropriate written certification that the debtor owes a debt (including the amount) and that applicable provisions of the Federal Claims Collection Standards have been fully complied with.
( b ) Moreover, the DOL agency holding funds of the debtor should determine whether collection by offset would be in the best interests of the United States; for example, if the debtor is a contractor for the DOL agency holding funds, whether administrative offset would impair the contractor's ability to perform under the terms of the contract. The creditor organization should be notified promptly of the determination.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 20 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 20

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2007

              Referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, 
        the President is the ``commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the 
        United States'', and in such capacity the President has the command of 
        the Armed Forces, including the authority to deploy troops and direct 
        military campaigns during wartime;
Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, 
        Congress has the power of the purse specifically as it relates to the 
        Armed Forces, and in such capacity Congress has the responsibility to 
        fully and adequately provide funding for United States military forces, 
        especially when they are at war and are defending the Nation; and
Whereas when United States military forces are in harm's way and are protecting 
        our country, Congress and the Nation should give them all the support 
        they need in order to maintain their safety and accomplish their 
        assigned missions, including the equipment, logistics, and funding 
        necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is 
        the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative 
        Branch of Government: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any 
action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, 
including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the 
field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their 
safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

            Passed the Senate March 15, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 35 

To amend Public Law 108–331 to provide for the construction and related 

activities in support of the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope 

Array System (VERITAS) project in Arizona. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2008 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. DODD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To amend Public Law 108–331 to provide for the construction and related activities in support of the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System 

(VERITAS) project in Arizona. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LOCATION OF VERITAS PROJECT. 

4 Public Law 108–331 (118 Stat. 1281) is amended— 

5 (1) in the long title, by striking ‘‘on Kitt Peak 

6 near Tucson, Arizona’’ and inserting ‘‘in Arizona’’; 

7 and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•SJ 35 IS 

1 (2) in section 1, by striking ‘‘on Kitt Peak near 

2 Tucson, Arizona’’ and inserting ‘‘at the Fred Law3 rence Whipple Observatory Base Camp on Mount 

4 Hopkins, Arizona, or other similar location’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
[No. 49695-6-I.

Division One.

October 21, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William Bourdeau, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-07850-6, Ann Schindler, J., entered December 10, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
§ 4044.41 General valuation rules. ( a ) *Valuation of benefits* — ( 1 ) *Trusteed plans.* The plan administrator of a plan that has been or will be placed into trusteeship by the PBGC shall value plan benefits in accordance with §§ 4044.51 through 4044.58.
( 2 ) *Non-trusteed plans.* The plan administrator of a non-trusteed plan shall value plan benefits in accordance with §§ 4044.71 through 4044.75. If a plan is unable to satisfy all benefits assigned to priority categories 1 through 4 on the distribution date, the PBGC will place it into trusteeship and the plan administrator shall re-value the benefits in accordance with §§ 4044.51 through 4044.58.
( b ) *Valuation of assets.* Plan assets generally will be valued at their fair market value as defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter. As appropriate, plan assets will be valued at their fair value in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP).
[61 FR 34059, July 1, 1996, as amended at 76 FR 34606, June 14, 2011; 88 FR 44052, July 11, 2023; 89 FR 48300, June 6, 2024]
Return to
Main Document   **EXHIBIT
32.1**
  **EXPRESS
SYSTEMS, CORPORATION.**
 **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 Express Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence Rosenblat,
President, CEO, Principal Accounting Officer, Principal Financial Officer
and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 result of operations of the
      Company.
  
 
 /s/
Lawrence Rosenblat
 Lawrence
Rosenblat
 President,
CEO, Principal Accounting Officer, Principal Financial Officer
and Director
 February
14, 2005
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-20652

____________

John Doe 1, on behalf of themselves and a Class of all other similarly situated 

John and or Jane Doe employees of Harris County; John Doe 2, on behalf of 

themselves and a Class of all other similarly situated John and or Jane Doe 

employees of Harris County, 

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Harris County, Texas; Lina Hidalgo, County Judge; Rodney 

Ellis, Precinct 1 Commissioner; Adrian Garcia, Precinct 2 

Commissioner; Jack Cagle, Precinct 4, Commissioner; Tom S. 

Ramsey, Precinct 3, Commissioner; Edward Gonzalez, Harris 

County Sheriff, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CV-3036

______________________________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 5, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-20652 Document: 00516990286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2023
No. 22-20652

2

Before Jones, Barksdale, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, the 

comprehensive district court opinion, and pertinent portions of the record. 

Having done so, we find no reversible error of lawor fact. The district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons articulated by that 

court.

_____________________

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th 

Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 22-20652 Document: 00516990286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2023
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 

MITCHAM INDUSTRIES, INC. 

SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 

(AS OF JULY 31, 2014) 

Retainer/Fees 
 Each non-employee director
is entitled to receive the following compensation: 
  

	 	•	 	an annual cash retainer fee of $35,000 per year, plus an additional $60,000 for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors; 


 

	 	•	 	an additional cash retainer of $7,500 per year for each member of the Audit Committee, plus an additional $5,000 per year for the chairperson of the Audit Committee;


 

	 	•	 	an additional cash retainer of $4,000 per year for each member of the Compensation Committee, plus an additional $4,000 per year for the chairperson of the Compensation Committee; 


 

	 	•	 	an additional fee of $2,000 for each Board of Directors meeting attended, including telephonic meetings. 


Equity-Based Compensation 
 In addition to
cash compensation, non-employee directors are eligible, at the discretion of the full Board of Directors, to receive discretionary grants of stock options or restricted stock or any combination thereof under Mitcham Industries, Inc.’s equity
compensation plans.
#### ZNIDARSIC v URH

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10037.

Decided May 20, 1929

Leopold Kushlan and S J Deutsch, both of Cleveland, for Znidarsic.

H F Glick, Cleveland for Urh.

SULLIVAN, J.

We think this contention fails, first, because from an interpretation of the *360clause it appears that the lessee could sell the business or move out. The obvious import of that language is that he could do either or both and thus it is not alternative in its nature. However, the fact appears in the record that he did both, to-wit, sold the lease and the business, and moved out, upon the occupancy of the premises by John and Jennie Pate, and therefore it is conclusively settled that there was an abandonment on the part of the original léssee of the lease under the clause in question.

A legal situation arises which corroborates this view, and it is based upon the record and that is that the assignee under the law succeeded to the rights under the lease held by the assignor, and the privilege of selling the business or moving out succeeded to the assignee and when he moved out it was the same exactly as if the- assignor taking advantage of his privilege under the clause in question had moved out, whether he sold the lease and business or otherwise.

Holding these views the judgment of the Municipal Court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ and Levine, J, concur.
#### In the Matter of Nunley’s Amusement Coup., Respondent-Appellant, v County of Nassau, Appellant-Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 505]

—In a proceeding pursuant to EDPL 708, the condemnor County of Nassau appeals from a judgment of Supreme Court, Nassau County (Rossetti, J.), entered May 8, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the claimant and against it in the principal sum of $854,450, and the claimant, Nunley’s Amusement Corp., cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the judgment as failed to award it compensation based on “incremental values for taking a going concern”. The claimant also appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated December 20, 1996, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to amend its appraisal.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the contention of the County of Nassau, the court properly denied the County’s objection to the admission of the claimant’s appraisal report. Considering the unique nature of the item to be appraised, the report substantially complied with 22 NYCRR 202.59 (g) (2) *(see, Matter of Welch Foods v Town of Westfield,*222 AD2d 1053, 1054).

The court properly denied the claimant’s motion to amend its appraisal report as the claimant failed to show good cause as required by 22 NYCRR 202.61 (a) (3) *(see, Matter of City of Albany [Brown Equip. Co.],*199 AD2d 746, 748).

*293The claimant’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Joy, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.