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





 Exhibit 10.1 

Schedule A-5 

This Schedule A-5 dated March 10, 2021, is issued pursuant to the Fourth Amended and Restated Executive
Employment Agreement by and among Company, Parent and Executive, dated March 20, 2019 (the “Agreement”), and shall be incorporated therein and governed by the terms and conditions of such Agreement. This Schedule A-5 is effective April 1, 2021, and is intended to replace any previously issued Schedule A. 
 1.
Position: Chief Executive Officer and President. Executive shall report in such capacity to the Board. 
 2. Base Salary: $540,000 per year.

 3. Bonus: Executive will be entitled to an annual performance-based cash bonus of $210,000, for the achievement of certain financial and
operational targets. These targets, and the bonus dollars tied to such targets, will be determined and communicated to you by the Board on an annual basis. For the 2021 calendar year your bonus will be determined as follows: 

One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars ($105,000) of your bonus will be based on the following performance measures: 

 

	 	a.	 ITS Revenue; 


  

	 	b.	 ITS Non-GAAP EBITDA; and 



 

	 	c.	 ITS Gross Profit Dollars. 



The remaining One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars ($105,000) of your bonus is based on the reducing the overall HIB percentage of ITS employees. 

The target amount for each measure for the 2021 calendar year is set forth on Appendix 1 to this schedule. Should Company fail to achieve the
target amount for the above performance measures, Executive’s annual performance-based bonus, if any, shall be based upon Company’s evaluation of the percentage of the target amount achieved during the year. Conversely, should
Company’s performance exceed the target amount for the above performance measures, Executive’s annual performance-based bonus may exceed the bonus amount stated above, based upon Company’s evaluation of the percentage of the
over-achievement of such target amount(s). All bonuses will be paid by March 15, 2022, following the completion of Company’s year-end audit. If Executive leaves Company voluntarily, or is terminated
with Cause, before December 31, 2021, Executive will not be eligible for a bonus. If Executive is terminated by Company during 2021 without Cause, Executive’s bonus calculation will be based on Company’s annual results (calculated as
though Executive were still an employee) and a prorated bonus will be paid considering the days in 2021 in which Executive was employed by Company divided by 365. 

4. Benefits: Executive is eligible for standard company benefits in the same manner as other executives of Company. 












 5. Expenses: Company will reimburse all properly documented expenses reasonably related to
Executive’s performance of Executive’s duties hereunder. 
  

									
					
	BY:	 	/s/ John J. Cronin, Jr. 3/10/21	 		 	BY:	 	/s/ Vivek Gupta 3/10/21
		 	Company / Date	 		 		 	Executive / Date


  
 -2-
Industrial Srtes Contmllad lry Others 

## [x] Tnis entirepopIseB]
#### Nancy Bell WADE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-373.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 29, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, Larry C. Oldham, the President and Chief Executive Officer ofParallel Petroleum Corporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Parallel for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the periodic reportingrequirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained inthat Form 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Parallel.Dated: March 16, 2006       /s/ Larry C. Oldham         Larry C. Oldham,    President and Chief Executive Officer       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Janet MYERS, Individually and as mother of Barbara Myers, Appellant, v. Dr. Vincent CHIONG, Appellee.

No. 72-1107.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Edward Robert MARSHALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-13.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 11, 1970.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of committing an armed robbery at the Highland Liquor Store in Duval County, Florida.

Following a telephone tip-off, the police staked out the scene of the robbery and observed appellant and his companion come out of the store, cut the wire in a nearby phone booth and get into a car parked nearby, stationed so as to effect their rapid departure. As the officers closed in, appellant and the other ran but were captured in the immediate vicinity. Appellant still had the sawed-off shotgun on him when apprehended.

The sole question raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred when the store manager and victim of the robbery was permitted to testify that he identified appellant in some photographs at the police *446station on the night of the robbery. Although the victim testified that he recognized and was able to identify appellant as the robber independently of the photographs, and did in fact so identify appellant, it is contended that it was error to permit testimony as to the incident at the station the night of the robbery when appellant was identified in the photographs. Appellant’s argument in this point is without merit. In Tafero v. State, 223 So.2d 564 (Fla.App.1969), the court rejected a similar contention on authority of a recent Supreme Court decision, Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, at page 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, at page 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), in which the court stated:

> “Despite the hazards of initial identification by photographs, this procedure has been used widely and effectively in criminal law enforcement, from the standpoint both of apprehending offenders and of sparing innocent suspects the ignominy of arrest by allowing eyewitnesses to exonerate them through scrutiny of photographs. The danger that use of the technique may result in convictions based on misidentification may be substantially lessened by a course of cross-examination at trial which exposes to the jury the method’s potential for error. We are unwilling to prohibit its employment, either in the exercise of our supervisory power or, still less, as a matter of constitutional requirement. Instead, we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misiden-tification.”

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD, K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
```

[Federal Register: October 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 207)]
[Notices]               
[Page 66074]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27oc10-37]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, November 26, 2010.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and enforcement matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-27324 Filed 10-25-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

          - [Docket ID OCC-2018-0016]

# AGENCY:

Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The OCC has determined that the renewal of the charter of the OCC Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee (MDIAC) is necessary and in the public interest. The OCC hereby gives notice of the renewal of the charter.

# DATES:

The charter of the OCC MDIAC has been renewed for a two-year period that began on June 25, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly F. Cole, Deputy Comptroller for Compliance Supervision and Designated Federal Officer, (202) 649-7260, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of the renewal of the MDIAC charter is hereby given, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. The Comptroller of the Currency has determined that the renewal of the MDIAC charter is necessary and in the public interest to provide advice and information about the current circumstances and future development of minority depository institutions, in accordance with the goals established by section 308 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Public Law 101-73, Title III, 103 Stat. 353, 12 U.S.C. 1463 note, which are to preserve the present number of minority depository institutions, preserve the minority character of minority depository institutions in cases involving mergers or acquisitions, provide technical assistance, and encourage the creation of new minority depository institutions.

Dated: July 3, 2018.

Joseph M. Otting,

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 2018-14690 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
# DO Priority Rating Register

                - Title:  DO Priority Rating Register 
                - Form #:         GSA2206      
                - Current Revision Date:  05/1967
                - Authority or Regulation:  

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

 PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

The undersigned, Marc T. Giles, the Chief Executive Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, hereby certifies that:

(i)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2003 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)	the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  September 11, 2003

/s/ Marc T. Giles
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
-0580 IN THE MATTER OF: C.M., A YOUTH. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 29, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 23 2022

05/23/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0580
#### INTERSTATE SECURITIES COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. OK MOTOR COMPANY OF PENSACOLA, Inc., Appellee.

No. N-62.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 15, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


[LETTERHEAD OF KPMG]



                    Independent Auditors' Report on Schedule
                    ----------------------------------------

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
California Steel Industries, Inc.:

Under date of January 19, 2001, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets
of California Steel Industries, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000 and
1999 and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2000, as contained in the 2000 annual report to stockholders.  These
consolidated financial statements and our report thereon are included in the
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.  In connection
with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also
audited the related financial statement schedule as listed in the accompanying
index.  This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial
statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly,
in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

                                                 /s/ KPMG LLP

Orange County, California
January 19, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 306 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 306

To designate majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 10, 1993

Mr. Hoyer submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To designate majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, 
elected to the following standing committees of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Foreign Affairs: Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois.
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Bobby L. Rush, 
Illinois.

                                 <all>
```
#### Union County vs. Kelly, as S. Com’r.

On a reversal of a judgment of the county court on appeal to the circuit court, that court ought to set the case down for trial upon its merits, not remand it to the county court for trial.

*Appeal from Union Circuit Court,*

Hon. Lew *B.*Green, Circuit Judge.

Cakleton, for the appellant.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

Kelly, as common school commissioner for Union county, by petition to the county court, made claim to be paid out of the county treasury, the amount of taxes that had been paid therein, from taxes assessed and collected on land in the six*351tcenth sections of the county] and which had been sold. The claim was founded on the *9th section, of chap.*154, *of Gould's Digest.*The county demurred to Kelly’s petition, the county court sustained the demurrer, and Kelly appealed to the circuit court. That court reversed the judgment of the county court, but instead of setting the case down for trial, upon its merits, as it should have done on reversal of the judgment, remanded the case to the county court, with instructions to overrule the demurrer.

Such judgments , from the probate court, under the statute regulating proceedings on appeals from that court to the circuit court, were held illegal in *Reagan vs. Mitchell,*4 *Ark.*630, and in *Dillard vs. Barnes,*5 *Ark.*302. In *Carnall vs. Crawford*County, 6 *Eng.*622, this court adopted the same method of review of cases brought into the circuit court from the county court by appeal, and such judgments as the one in this case were pronounced to be reversible in *Clark County vs. Spence, and Clark County vs. Scott,*21 *Ark.*466*and*468.

The judgment of the circuit court of Union county is reversed, with directions to set the case for trial in that court upon its merits.
July 1, 2015

Mr. Russell Hughes

1500 Foster Drive

Cedar Park, TX 78613

Dear Mr. Hughes:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 26, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2511), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      25,553,170
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         950,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 97,391,609
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      97,391,609
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        97,391,609
<LOANS>                                    433,852,636
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,970,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             603,243,597
<DEPOSITS>                                 538,585,521
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,191,841
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          7,664,118
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,568,716
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       464,792
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,768,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             603,243,597
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             38,422,899
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,240,349
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               701,671
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            44,364,919
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          21,963,493
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,693,053
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       21,671,866
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  884,682
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             465,982
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,226,325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,105,697
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,105,697
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,579,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.88
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.64
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,600,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,384,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,131,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                1,463,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   137,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,971,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,971,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Roscoe JONES v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53877.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1973.

In re: Roscoe Jones applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and other remedial writs.

Writ denied. Perusal of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the minutes, the waiver of constitutional rights form and the colloquy between court and defendant at plea, establish that the plea was freely and intelligently entered.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated January 26, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 504 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-250883) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 26, 2021
#### Henley et al. *v.*Paxton, Treasurer.

*Assessments*— Failure *of property owner to file*objections— —Waiver—Injunction..

(No. 18352

Decided June 3, 1924.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Ashland county.

*Mr. F. O. Levering*and *Mr. Robert J. Grossman,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr.*17. *F. Henderson,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. H. E, Culbertson,*for defendant -in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on the authority of *Bashore*v. *Brown, Treas.,*108 Ohio St., 18, and *City of Cuyahoga Falls*v. *Beck, ante,*82.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Hay and Allen, JJ., concur.

Wanamaker, J., not participating.