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

Exhibit 10.6



AMENDED SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE EXECUTED A 
CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT (this “Schedule”)


This Schedule of Executive Officers Who Have Executed a Change in Control Agreement relates to the form of Change in Control Agreement filed by Independent Bank Group, Inc. as Exhibit 10.1(a) to its Quarterly Report on Form 10‐Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2016 (the “Form Agreement”). This Schedule is included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the purpose of setting forth the details in which the specific agreements executed in the form of the Form Agreement differ from the Form Agreement, and, in particular to set forth the persons who, with Independent Bank Group, Inc., were parties to the Change in Control Agreements in such form as of October 25, 2022.
									
	Executive Officer Who is a Party to such Change in Control Agreement	Date of Change in Control Agreement	The number of times the sum of (a) Executive’s current base salary plus (b) Executive’s target total annual bonus for the year of termination paid upon a Change in Control
	David R. Brooks	July 26, 2016	Three (3) times
	Daniel W. Brooks	July 26, 2016	Two and a half (2.5) times
	James P. Tippit	January 31, 2018	Two (2) times
	Mark S. Haynie	January 31, 2018	Two (2) times
	Michael B. Hobbs	December 11, 2020	Two and a half (2.5) times

	Paul B. Langdale	October 24, 2022	Two (2) times




John G. Turpen’s Change In Control Agreement is included within his Employment Agreement dated July 15, 2021 (Exhibit 10.8) also includes a change in control provision at Section 4 which calls for the payment of Two (2) times the sum of his base salary plus the sum of (x) the Annual Base Salary and (y) the greater of (i) the Annual Incentive Bonus Target Opportunity and (ii) the average Annual Incentive Bonus actually paid to Executive (before any tax withholding) during the three (3) completed years prior to the Date of Termination, for the calendar year in which the Date of Termination occurs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          69,873
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,563,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,529
<INVENTORY>                                    318,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,397,470
<PP&E>                                       7,109,206
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,862,191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,130,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,674,868
<BONDS>                                      2,406,259
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,565,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,130,377
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,379,038
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,119,832
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                23,415
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,388
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,514
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,762)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,752
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATION
                                      OF
                              PSB HOLDINGS, INC.
                UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of PSB Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and (2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

      Date: August 14, 2003

                                           DAVID K. KOPPERUD
                                           David K. Kopperud
                                           President and CEO


                                           SCOTT M. CATTANACH
                                           Scott M. Cattanach
                                           Treasurer
                                           (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
      been provided to
      PSB Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by PSB Holdings, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### Manuel PEDRO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-612.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 21, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. He was arrested on July 26, 1971, hut thereafter failed to appear for trial and was later served with an alias capias on December. 6, 1972 in the Broward County Jail. He was brought to trial on April 16, 1973. The question raised on this appeal is whether the court erred in denying a motion for discharge pursuant to the speedy trial rule presented to the trial court on April 16, 1973. The defendant claimed discharge pursuant to Rule 3.191(b)(1), CrPR, 33 F.S.A.

We hold that the trial court correctly found that the defendant had not cárried the burden imposed by Rule 3.191(e), CrPR, 33 F.S.A., which states that the accused “ . . . must by competent proof establish continuous availability”. In this case, the appellant suggested that an assistant state’s attorney must have known of his whereabouts because of matters not reflected in the record. This was not sufficient.

Affirmed.
### GRIFFIN 

### & SERRANO, P 

## .A.

Coral Gables Office

(305) 777-0247


### Via FEDERAL EXPRESS Federal Aviation Administration Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 600 Independence Avenue SW Attorneys At Law Blackstone Building, Sixth Floor 707 Southeast 3'' Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Tel: (954) 462-4002 Fax: (954) 462-4009 jserrano@griffinserrano.com

September 4, 2014

WilburWright Building, Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Re: FAA v. Miami Tech FAA FileNo: 2010S0190295 Our FileNo.: 54-004 Dear HearingDocket Clerk, 

# RECEIVED SEP - 52014 

## HEARING DOCKET

Plantation Key Office (305) 852-5500

Miami Tech Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 13.16(g)(2)(ii) hereby requests as hearing for the matter subject ofFAA File No: 2010S0190295. Please note that the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty was received on September 3, 2014 andthis request is being made this 41 h day ofSeptember, 2014. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

JRS/agp Cc: 

### Via USPost- J!.eturn Receipt Mr. William P. Vines, Esq. Office ofRegional Counsel Federal AviationAdministration PO BOX20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Warme_s.J:-Regafd 

# //

**'--------~""---** JU
#### PIZZA PALACE OF MIAMI, INC., Appellant, v. PAN-AM TOBACCO CORP., Appellee.

No. 69-12.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 30, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1969.

Seymour London, Miami, for appellant.

Richard M. Sepler, Hialeah, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of the principles stated in Highland Lakes, Inc. v. Art Present Real Estate, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 348.
Table 7. Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:
          Fourth Quarter 1995 and 1994                  
         
        
                        Fourth      Fourth      Standard     Standard
                       Quarter     Quarter      error on     error on
                          1995       1994      1995 rate   difference
                                                                     
 United States.........  65.1        64.2           0.2          0.2 
                                                                    
   Less than 25 years..  16.5        15.2           0.6          0.8
   25 to 29 years......  35.6        35.1           0.6          0.8
   30 to 34 years.....   53.2        51.5           0.5          0.8
   35 to 39 years......  62.6        61.6           0.5          0.7
   40 to 44 years......  68.6        68.1           0.5          0.7
   45 to 49 years......  73.9        74.1           0.5          0.7
   50 to 54 years......  76.8        75.9           0.5          0.8
   55 to 59 years......  79.0        78.5           0.6          0.8
   60 to 64 years......  80.1        79.9           0.6          0.8
   65 to 69 years......  82.2        80.9           0.6          0.8
   70 to 74 years......  80.4        80.6           0.6          0.8
   75 years and over...  75.5        73.8           0.5          0.7
                                                                    
     Less than 35 years  39.1        38.0           0.4          0.5
     35 to 44 years....  65.5        64.7           0.4          0.5
     45 to 54 years....  75.2        74.9           0.4          0.5
     55 to 64 years....  79.5        79.2           0.4          0.6
     65 years and over.  78.7        77.7           0.3          0.5
#### Harold Eugene TROUT, d/b/a Sterling Lounge, et al., Appellant, v. Donna Lee BARTRO, Appellee.

No. 72-973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 30, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Hugh MacMillan, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>              9
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
 <PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
 <CASH>                                          8,206
 <INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          1,386
 <FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
 <TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
 <INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    46,016
 <INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         14,830
 <INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           15,072
 <LOANS>                                       154,019
 <ALLOWANCE>                                     2,002
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                229,246
 <DEPOSITS>                                    192,841
 <SHORT-TERM>                                    7,753
 <LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,673
 <LONG-TERM>                                     6,000
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
 <PREFERRED>                                         0
 <COMMON>                                        1,805
 <OTHER-SE>                                     19,174
 <TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                229,246
 <INTEREST-LOAN>                                 3,267
 <INTEREST-INVEST>                                 879
 <INTEREST-OTHER>                                   33
 <INTEREST-TOTAL>                                4,179
 <INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,888
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,050
 <INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           2,129
 <LOAN-LOSSES>                                      75
 <SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
 <EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 1,427
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                   954
 <INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        954
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
 <CHANGES>                                           0
 <NET-INCOME>                                      635
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .72
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                     .72
 <YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.28
 <LOANS-NON>                                       299
 <LOANS-PAST>                                        0
 <LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
 <LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 4,036
 <ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                1,947
 <CHARGE-OFFS>                                      75
 <RECOVERIES>                                       55
 <ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               2,002
 <ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            2,002
 <ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
 <ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 18

- 00194

- CR

__________________

JOHN DEE WETER JR. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15

- 08

- 08092

- CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 29, 2019, the State filed a motion to abate, in which the State

indicated that the appellant, John Dee Weter Jr., is deceased. Because the death

occurred after Weter perfected the appeal and before we issued our mandate, the

appeal must be permanent ly abated. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(2). Accordingly, we

permanently abate the appeal.2 APPEAL PERM A N E NTLY ABATED.

_________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on June 11, 2019

Opinion Delivered June 12, 201 9

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Administrative action to revise treatment schedule T101-b-1, 

the methyl bromide fumigation of asparagus for external 

feeders

Treatment Evaluation Document

Date: December 6. 2012

New Treatment/ 

Revision/Deletion 

Treatment Type Target Pests Commodity 

Applicable

Country(ies) of 

origin

Revision Methyl Bromide

(MB)

External Feeders Asparagus All

Objective: To provide justification for a revision of treatment schedule T101-b-1 in the 

PPQ Treatment Manual. The change, a half-an-hour increase in treatment duration for all

temperature ranges, is to help continue the importation of asparagus into the United 

States while safeguarding from target pests.

Overview: In 2007, live Copitarsia sp. larvae were detected on Peruvian asparagus 

during a post-fumigation inspection. As prescribed by treatment T101-b-1 in the PPQ 

Treatment Manual (see below), the asparagus had been fumigated using a 4 lbs MB/1000 

ft3dosage for two hours at 40-49° F. PPQ evaluated the treatment information and 

determined that while the treatment was efficacious against all stages of the pest, its

effectiveness against eggs was insufficient and a longer treatment duration or a higher 

dose of MB would be needed for complete mortality of the eggs. A subsequent study by

PPQ noted that fresh asparagus also had a tendency to absorb the chemical thereby

resulting in lower gas concentrations in the enclosure and a portion of eggs surviving the 

treatment (Myers, 2008, pers. comm.). Therefore, as an interim measure and to ensure 

trade would continue uninterrupted, PPQ increased the treatment duration by half an hour 

for all temperature ranges and monitored its effectiveness against all stages of the pest. 

Since 2007 when the treatment was revised there has been no interception of Copitarsia

sp. This has therefore confirmed the efficacy of the extended treatment.
2

Evaluation: After reviewing the available research and PPQ’s experience with 

importation of asparagus treated with extended treatment, APHIS’ Treatment Quality

Assurance Unit (TQAU) determined that an increase in treatment duration or MB dose 

was necessary to ensure treatment efficacy for all stages of the pest, and that half an hour 

increase in duration was sufficient to achieve the desired level of efficacy. PPQ’s 

Treatment Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed the information and recommended its 

approval.

Old Treatment Schedule T101-b-1

New Treatment Schedule T101-b-1 as proposed showing an increase in treatment 

duration.

Temperature Dosage Rate 0.5 hours 2.5 hours 

80 F or above 1.5 lbs 19 14

70-79 F. 2.0 lbs 26 19

60-69 F. 2.5 lbs 32 24

50-59 F. 3.0 lbs 38 29

40-49 F. 4.0 lbs 48 38

Decision: Amend treatment schedule T101-b-1 as proposed above.

Originators:

Laura Jeffers. PPQ-CPHST-TQAU, Pest Exclusion Specialist

Josie Cooley. PPQ-RPM, Team Leader/Writer
**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 Annual Report of Centenary International Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Hector A. Patron Costas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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 results of the operation of
                the
                Company.

















/s/
      Hector A. Patron Costas


Hector
      A.
      Patron Costas


Chief
      Executive Officer


April
      11,
      2007





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §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 Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated
      by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
      or
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after
      the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language
      contained in such filing.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the
      Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




34
Overall DVD Folder Organization

File Name File Size 

(bytes) 

File Type Description

DVD Documentation.xls 187,392 xls This file. A complete listing of files included on the Inland TSD Data #2 

DVD, approximate file size, file type and description.

CHLOR_ST.DBF 36,864 dbf List of stations with chlorophyll data in canal analysis.

notimpair.dbf 6,144 dbf List of all sites in canal analysis that were outside impaired WBIDs by at 

least 1,000 m

stat_531.dbf 21,504 dbf List of sites used in canal analysis (n=531) and corresponding lat/lng

WBID_NUT.DBF 237,568 dbf List of all WBIDs that were identified as nutrient impaired (used in canal 

analysis)

edacda_sagt.dbf 27,648 dbf NOAA's Coastal Assessment Framework organization of estuaries

EPANutrientWatershedRegions.zip 932,864 zip Compressed shapefile of EPA nutrient watershed regions

Inland TSD (Technical Support Document) Data #2:

File List and Description 

EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596

This DVD consists of data used in developing the Florida Inland Waters nutrient criteria technical support document. A copy of these files is available 

for review in the EPA reading room. Files included are described in the table below. 

04) Canals

05) GIS Shapefiles

Inland TSD Data #2

Note: File size is approximate. Page 1 of 1