alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.3





SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


Hooker Furniture Corporation




The annual term of service for each of the non-employee members of the Company’s Board of Directors typically begins with the director’s election at the Company’s annual meeting of shareholders. Starting with the current term, compensation for non-employee directors will be aligned with each director’s term of service. The annual compensation for non-employee directors for the period beginning June 8, 2010, the date of the Company’s 2010 annual meeting of shareholders, is as follows:




§
$20,000 retainer for service on the Board; plus




§
$8,500 for serving on the Audit Committee and $4,000 for serving on each of the Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees; plus




§
an additional $5,000 for the Chair of the Audit Committee, $4,000 for the Chair of the Compensation Committee and $3,000 for the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.




In addition, directors will be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attending board and committee meetings or performing their duties as directors.




Non-employee directors also receive an annual grant of restricted stock under the Company’s 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated in June 2010. The number of shares of restricted stock awarded to each non-employee director is determined by dividing fifty percent of the total annual fees payable to that director by the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the award date (the average of the high and low market price of the stock on the day prior to the grant date), and rounding to the nearest whole share. The restricted stock will become fully vested, and the restrictions applicable to the restricted stock will lapse, on the third anniversary of the grant date, or if earlier, when the director dies or is disabled, the annual shareholders meeting following the director’s attainment of age 75, or a change in control of the Company.




On June 11, 2010, each non-employee director of the Company received an award of restricted shares of Company common stock, as set forth in the table below:




Outside Director

Restricted Stock Grant

(# of shares)W. Christopher Beeler, Jr.


1,530John L. Gregory, III


1,379Mark F. Schreiber


1,400David G. Sweet


1,400Henry G. Williamson, Jr.


1,616
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53607-53608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) notice is hereby given of the 
following Advisory Committee meeting: Environmental Management Site-
Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB) Chairperson and Federal Coordinator 
Meeting.

DATES: Tuesday, October 28, 1997, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.; Wednesday, October 
29, 1997, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Fairmont Hotel, 1717 North Akard Street, Dallas, Texas 
75201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karol Hazard, Department of Energy, 
EM-22, Room 1H-087, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, 
phone: (202) 586-7926, fax: (202) 586-0293.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental 
restoration, waste management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda: This is a special-called Board Chairperson and 
Federal Coordinator meeting. It will include information sharing 
between the Board's site-groups, and discussions on policy and 
administrative issues, and specific EM initiatives.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Karol Hazard at the address or telephone 
number listed above. Requests must be received 5 days prior to the 
meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the 
presentation in the agenda. The Designated Federal Official is 
empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public 
comment will be provided a maximum of 5 minutes to present their 
comments at the end of each meeting day.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 
1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 
DC 20585 between 9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Minutes will

[[Page 53608]]

also be made available by writing or calling Karol Hazard at the 
Board's office address or telephone number listed above.

    Issued at Washington, DC on October 9, 1997.
Rachel Samuel,
 Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-27288 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Carlton L. WELCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. FF-233.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1978.

Carlton Welch, in pro. per., Jacksonville, and Joseph C. Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A lawyer appeals from a judgment of contempt and a sentence to pay a fine or be jailed, entered after appropriate proceedings on an order to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt for departing his client’s trial on a criminal charge, during the jury’s deliberations, without leave of court. The lawyer left to keep a bowling date. He claims to have supposed from a conversation with the judge, concerning his bowling date, his hope for an early verdict, and the possible sentence for his client, that he had the court’s tacit permission to leave his client unattended at the rendition of the verdict. The lawyer advised his client and the bailiff that he was going bowling, but left no other information concerning his whereabouts. The court reluctantly received the verdict in the lawyer’s absence.

A lawyer who deliberately and without permission or excuse leaves his client without representation at the rendition of the verdict in a criminal proceeding commits an act which is inconsistent with his professional obligations and which may hinder and embarrass the orderly discharge of judicial functions. See *Krathen v. State,*310 So.2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). No actual interruption or delay occurred, which mitigates appellant’s default. See *In re Taylor,*240 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). But appellant’s reason for abandoning his client and the court was frivolous and contemptuous. Moreover, as the trial court found, the lawyer’s attribution of tacit consent to the court, given the conversation on which it was based, was “incredible.” See *People v. McDonnell,*377 Ill. 568, 37 N.E.2d 159 (1941). Taken as a whole, the evidence supports the judgment and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         495,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  555,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,152,463
<PP&E>                                         104,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,757,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,350,316
<BONDS>                                        485,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,476
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,023,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,757,483
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,597
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,149,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,000,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             385,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,795,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,795,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,795,014)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.26)
        

</TABLE>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 0055 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 167 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 2013 - 0188 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Genzyme Transgenics Corporation on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 33-82982, 33-97024, and
333-25769) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-69516, 33-69518, 33-69520, 33-84706,
33-88030, 33-92970, 33- 92998, 333-04535, 333-29059, 333-29975, 333-29977, and
333-34119) of our report dated February 25, 1998, except as to the information
presented in Note 13 for which the date is March 20, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Genzyme Transgenics Corporation as of
December 28, 1997 and December 29, 1996 and for each of the three fiscal years
in the period ended December 28, 1997, which report is included in this 1997
Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                             /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
                                             COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1998
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------








            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------



We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-121439) of our report, dated March 10, 2005,
relating  to  the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  N-Viro International
Corporation  included  in  this  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December  31,  2004.







  /s/  UHY  LLP
---------------
UHY  LLP


Southfield,  Michigan
March  29,  2005
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mark E. FLYNN.

No. 62122.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Leonard E. Yokum, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Tangipahoa.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, J., would grant the writ.
Exhibit 32.2 - Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)

                        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 RPM Advantage, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2011
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
thereof (the "Report").

I, David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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/ David R. Pressler
--------------------------
    David R. Pressler
    CEO President and Director


Date  April 25, 2011
      -----------------
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

    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 Annual Report of The Town and Country Trust (the "Trust")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned officer of the Trust does hereby certify 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 Trust.


/s/ Harvey Schulweis
--------------------------
Harvey Schulweis
Chief Executive Officer of
The Town and Country Trust

March 28, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27456]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; 
Committee of Visitors; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences 
(66).
    Date and Time: November 6-7, 1997, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Rm. 1060, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. G. Bruce Taggart, Program Director for 
Materials Theory, Materials Research Division, Room 1065, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 306-1834.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review of the Materials Theory Program grant portfolio and identify 
emerging research areas.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate existing Materials Theory grant 
portfolio and recommend areas for future emphasis.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-27456 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Mrs. Clarissa BROUSSARD v. The STATE of Louisiana, Through the DIVISION OF HOSPITALS, et al.

No. 62075.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: Mrs. Clarissa Broussard applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the *640Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 356 So.2d 94.

Denied.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001077319
<NAME> PANGEA PETROLEUM CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         106,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               910,314
<PP&E>                                          73,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,106,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,368
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,241
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,102,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,106,225
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               811,883
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (864,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (864,470)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
# Roxboro
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERSON OBED HERRERA GONZALES, 

AKA Gerson Obed Herrera Gonzalez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71468 

Agency No. A088-889-362 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2021

**

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Gerson Obed Herrera Gonzales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 18 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-71468 

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 

1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Herrera Gonzales does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived 

his challenge to the IJ’s finding that his asylum application was untimely and that 

he was ineligible for CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 

1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s 

opening brief are waived). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Herrera 

Gonzales did not establish past persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 

F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An applicant alleging past persecution has the 

burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the 

persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the 

persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government 

was unable or unwilling to control.”); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 

1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include 

every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted)). Herrera Gonzales does not raise, and therefore waives, any 

challenge to the agency’s determination that he failed to establish a clear 

probability of future persecution in Guatemala. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at
3 15-71468 

1079-80. Thus, Herrera Gonzales’ withholding of removal claim fails.

As stated in the court’s August 6, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal 

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.