alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.19

 

	

    	
2013 Incentive Compensation Plan
    
	
 
    
	
Effective January 1, 2013
    
	
 
    
	
Personal   and Confidential
    


 

	
Employee
    	
 
    	
Frederick Weismann
    	
 
    	
Estimated 2013 Salary
    	
 
    	
$
    	
141,804
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title
    	
 
    	
VP/Sr.   Commerical Loan Officer
    	
 
    	
Estimated   2013 Target
    	
 
    	
20
    	
%
    	
$
    	
28,361
    	
 
    
												


 

Thresholds          Maintain CAMELS rating at one of the two highest ratings

 

Maintain a Commerical Asset Quality rating of “Satisfactory” or better

 

Maintain Commerical Loan Quality Control rating at “Satisfactory” or better based on internal audit results

 

Qualifiers                        Credit Administration Exceptions maintained at no greater than 30% of the commercial loan portfolio All new and existing commerical loan relationships maintain an average Risk Rating of no less than 4.5 Loan department must close a minimum in total new loan commitments not inclusive of loan modifications.

 

Net loan growth for the commercial loan portfolio of target $ amount.

 

Goal #1:                               Increase Commercial Loans Outstanding

 

	
Annual Payout Target
    	
 
    	
65
    	
%=
    	
$
    	
18,435
    	
 
    


 

NOTES

 

*  80% of this bonus target will be paid out in the year following attainment, with 20% equally deferred  over the following two     years

*  Employee is eligible for payouts up to an additional 10% of base salary based on overachievement against this goal.

 

Goal #2:                               Profitability and Deposit Relationships

 

	
Annual Payout Target
    	
 
    	
35
    	
%=
    	
$
    	
9,926
    	
 
    


 

Payout will be based on the cumulative attainment of the following, not to exceed 100% of the Target:

 

75% of new lending relationships will open new DDA accounts

 

Fee income meets or exceeds target % of total new loan commitments in 2013.

 

Average pricing for all new commercial loans commitments in 2013 meets or exceeds target %.

 

1











 

NOTES:

 

Detailed objectives, payout criteria and examples are provided in the attached Compensation Plan Narrative

 

All dollar figures are based on estimates of annualized salary.  Incentive payments will be based on the employee’s actual base compensation for the calendar year, which includes straight time pay, vacation, holiday, personal, sick and jury duty pay. Overtime and other payments including previous year’s bonus payout will be excluded from the calculation.

 

To be eligible for the Incentive Compensation, the employee must be actively employed and not be on an active Performance Improvement Plan or a written warning at the time of the incentive payment.

 

The Bank shall have the right to rescind and recoup or “clawback” incentive payments paid under this plan if the Compensation Committee concludes that such awards were paid out based on information that is later found to be materially incorrect, including payments that were determined, in whole or in part, on financial statement information that is subsequently restated.

 

2
114°W 413°W 1120w

37°N
1 ] Tr in .
gig } ‘\ Glen
3 | PariaRi ;

o Canyon
ge 9 7 Cany! in.
' Nev Utah | Karat Reservation bee

iz
Study area =
2
g
Cali

¢GrandCanyon
National Park

Yann ReservationTM|

River
‘Palisades
‘ a a Creek
= A

Phantom’ ee aps rr

Ranch

36°N

Hualapal Reservation

a 0 25 KILOMETERS

iz 0 20 MILES
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY O’KEEFE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2277 DFL JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT DIEBALL et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject

of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is

no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San

Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim

Case 2:04-cv-02277-DFL -JFM Document 48 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the

correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.

1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on defendants’ March 14, 2005 motion to dismiss; and

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central 

District of California.

DATED: September 20, 2005. 

12

okee2277.22

Case 2:04-cv-02277-DFL -JFM Document 48 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of Litigation Trustee Pursuantto18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofInformation Resources, Inc. Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust forthe quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ JOSEPH P. DURRETT |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
| Joseph P. Durrett     |
| Litigation Trustee    |
| May 8, 2006      |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of § 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

1

----
<page>
									           EXHIBIT 32.02


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 of Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Currency L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Kevin
Perry, Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation,
the general partner of the Partnership, certify, 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 my knowledge:

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

     (2)	The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Partner-
ship.







By:	/s/	Kevin Perry

Name:		Kevin Perry
Title:		Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 31, 2006
No. 58087.

protests 154850-K, etc. (Duluth).

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the Western white spruce lumber the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1538), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.
(Reap. Dec. 8458)

#### The Danwill Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 725987.

(Decided July 7, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the Court that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the cotton cloth covered by the invoice and entry specified above at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to .all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for its exportation to the United States including all costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was 16 Deutsche Marks per meter packed and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was 16 deutschemarks per meter, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
a51061265ex10_6.htm


Exhibit 10.6


 



 


Severance Agreement between Wellesley Bank and Ralph Letner


 







 


The purpose of this letter is to confirm the terms of your severance compensation agreement with Wellesley Bank (the “Bank”). These terms supersede any prior agreement with the Bank.


 


If you are dismissed without “cause” or dismissed or demoted within twelve (12) months of the effective date of a “change in control,” as these terms are defined in the Wellesley Bank Employee Severance Compensation Plan dated January 25, 2012 (the “Plan”), you will be entitled to twenty-four (24) months of base salary.  In addition, the Bank will continue to pay the Bank’s share of health insurance premiums in accordance with the Bank’s existing health insurance plan.  The terms of your severance compensation shall be governed by and subject to the terms of the Plan except to the extent of a conflict with this letter, in which case this letter will control to the extent necessary to eliminate the conflict.  A copy of the Plan is attached for you reference.


 


Prior to being entitled to receive any severance payments or paid health insurance coverage and in consideration of the foregoing, you will be required to sign the Bank’s standard severance release in which you agree to release the Bank from any and all claims against the Bank to the extent permitted by law.


 


To confirm our agreement with the foregoing, please sign a copy of this letter and return it to my attention.


 


Should you have any questions, please call me at your convenience.


 




	
Date: November 26, 2014

	
 

	/s/ Thomas J Fontaine	 
	 	 	President and CEO	 
	 	 	Accepted:	 
	 	 	

/s/ Ralph Letner
#### Virna Mirand et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Defendant, and Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 167]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered October 4, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion to reduce the interest on the judgment entered July 7, 1994 to a rate of less than 9%, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While General Municipal Law § 3-a provides for an interest rate not in excess of 9%, CPLR 5004 prohibits a lower rate except where authorized by statute *{Carson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*178 AD2d 265). Thus, there is no merit to defendant’s contention that the rate of interest is a discretionary determination that in the instant case should take into account prevailing market rates of interest. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.
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

The undersigned, Guoshen Tu, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

|1. | The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation of the Company.                                                   

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 30th day of April 2009.

/s/ Guoshen TuGuoshen Tu 
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



---
# C_2007075EN.01000501.xml

| 3.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/5

---

Notifications by the Republic of Bulgaria concerning visa reciprocity (1)

1

(2007/C 75/03)

Brussels, 13 February 2007

File No 429

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and in accordance with Article 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 as regards the reciprocity mechanism states that nationals of the Republic of Bulgaria are subject to visa requirements for the following third countries listed in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001: Australia, Bolivia, Brunei, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Singapore and USA.

Australia, Bolivia, Brunei, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Singapore and USA.

Costa Rica and Malaysia exempt Bulgarian nationals from visa requirements for a period of thirty days which cannot be regarded as full reciprocity.

Costa Rica

Malaysia

The Republic of Bulgaria has signed non-visa agreements with Israel and Paraguay which are not in force owing to on-going ratification procedures. Bulgarian nationals are still subject to visa requirements for those two countries, which is also an element of temporary non-reciprocity.

Israel

Paraguay

A Note Verbale with an identical text is being sent to the Commission of the European Union.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria would take this opportunity of renewing to the Council of the European Union the assurances of its highest consideration.

Brussels, 26 February 2007

File No 429A

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union presents its compliments to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and, in addition to the Note Verbale by the Permanent Representation No 429 dated 13 February 2007 and in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation No 851/2005 supplementing Regulation No 539/2001 as regards the reciprocity mechanism, states that as from 11 March 2007 Bulgarian nationals are exempt from visa requirements concerning transit and short-term stays in the United States of Mexico for a period of up to 90 days within six months of the date of first entry.

United States of Mexico

A Note Verbale with an identical text has been sent to the Commission of the European Union.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria would take this opportunity of renewing to the Council of the European Union the assurances of its highest consideration.

---

(1)  These notifications are published in conformity with Article 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Dyson, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 372]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that suppression of his statement to the police is required because it was obtained in violation of his right to counsel. He argues that there was a three-week delay between the decision to arrest defendant and the date of his warrant-less arrest and that "the only conceivable reason” for the decision not to obtain an arrest warrant was to deprive defendant of his right to counsel, thereby enabling the police to obtain a statement from him in the absence of counsel. "The constitutional right to counsel is fundamental and its denial may, therefore, be raised for the first time on appeal” *(People v Banks,*53 NY2d 819, 821). There is, however, no constitutional right to be arrested *(Hoffa v United States,*385 US 293; *People v Keller,*148 AD2d 958, 960, *lv denied*73 NY2d 1017), and *1005there is no requirement that the police obtain an arrest warrant when, as here, defendant is arrested outside his home *(cf., Payton v New York,*445 US 573; *People v Harris,*77 NY2d 434). Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the police deliberately failed to obtain an arrest warrant before speaking to defendant in order to avoid the attachment of defendant’s right to counsel, that failure would not require suppression of defendant’s statement *(see, People v Caviano,*194 AD2d 429, 431, *lv denied*82 NY2d 892; *see also, People v Counts,*214 AD2d 897).

Defendant’s reliance on *People v Cooper*(101 AD2d 1) and *People v Edgerton*(115 AD2d 257, *Iv denied*67 NY2d 882) is misplaced; those cases involve delay between arrest and arraignment, while in this case defendant argues that there was pre-arrest delay. His reliance on *People v Harris (supra)*also is misplaced; that case involved a statement made following a *Payton*violation *(see also, People v Tondryk,*176 AD2d 1194, *lv denied*79 NY2d 833; *People v Keller, supra,*at 960). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Bristol, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.)
Case No. 13,820.

#### The TELAMON.

[4 Adm. Rec. 570.]

District Court, S. D. Florida.

March 14, 1852.

Salvage — Compensation- — Separate Consort-ships.

[Twenty per cent, allowed on goods saved from a wreck, with comparatively little labor and expense, by a first expedition, 50 per cent, on goods saved partly by diving, by a second expedition, and 60 per cent, on goods saved entirely by diving, by subsequent expeditions.]

[Cited in The Isaac Allerton, Case No. 7,088; Baker v. The Slobodna, 35 Fed. 541.]

[Libel in rem by William Lowe and others against the cargo and materials of the ship Telamon for salvage.]

Thomas F. King, for libelants.

Wm. R. Hackley, for respondent.

MARVIN, District Judge.

The ship Tela-mon while on a voyage from New York to New Orleans ran ashore on the Delta Shoals, near Key Vacas, and was totally lost. The value of the materials and cargo ■saved by libellants amounted to §37,248.91. Every possible effort was made to save the ship, but without success. The goods saved by the seven vessels composing the first con-sortship amounted to §23,904.88, and this property was saved in good condition, or nearly so, and with but little labor and difficulty as compared with that subsequently saved. The goods saved by the nine vessels composing the second consortship amounted to §7,967.26. This property was saved in a damaged condition, and in part by diving. The goods saved by the third consortship, composed of seven vesels, amounted to §1,-283.76, and were all saved by diving. The goods saved by the fourth consortship, composed of five vessels, amounted to §496.17, and were saved by diving. This consort-ship also saved the materials amounting to §2,417.74, and expended §900 for hire of windmills and pumps employed in their unsuccessful efforts to float the ship. Certain other vessels saved property worth §1,179.10 by diving. The court awarded 20 per cent, to the first consortship, 50 per cent, to the second consortship, and 60 per cent, to the others on the amount saved by each, respectively, and also awarded to the fourth consortship the amount expended for hire of windmill and pumps.