alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.10.10

 

[Form of Letter]

 

As you are aware, in connection with your service as a member of the Board of Directors of Walter Energy, Inc. (“Walter”), you have been granted options to purchase shares of Walter common stock (“Options”) under the Amended and Restated 2002 Long-Term Incentive Award Plan of Walter, as it may be amended from time to time (the “Plan”).   In connection therewith, you have entered into the following Award Agreements [List Outstanding Award Agreements] (collectively, the “Outstanding Award Agreements”).  Capitalized terms used in this letter agreement but not expressly defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the applicable Outstanding Award Agreement.

 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan or the Outstanding Award Agreements, following your Termination of Directorship for any reason (other than by reason of termination for “cause” as determined by the Board in its sole and absolute discretion), the Options, to the extent they become in accordance with the terms of the Outstanding Award Agreements, shall remain exercisable until the tenth (10th) anniversary of the Grant Date.

 

This letter agreement hereby serves as an amendment to each Outstanding Award Agreement and shall be deemed to be a part thereof.  Except as expressly set forth above, the Outstanding Award Agreements shall remain in full force and effect.

 

This letter agreement shall be administered, interpreted and enforced under the internal laws of the State of Delaware without regard to conflicts of laws thereof.

 

 

	
 
    	
WALTER   ENERGY, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
Title:
i .•spnDT"T!nNi 

• ..•! >./. ilnlivjji l 

Flight Services, Inc. no 

April 13, 2010 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Request for exemption ffOTTrequirement to have a separate Part 91.147 drug and alcohol testmg program. 

Attn: Drug Abatement Division: 

I am writing to request an exemption from the requirement to have a separate Part 91.147 drug and alcohol testing 

program for sightseeing flights conducted by Orion Flight Services, Inc. (Letter of Authorization 09FJGL13). In 

addition to an LOA for sightseeing flights, Orion Flight Services Inc. also holds an air carrier certificate (Cert.# 

O9FA098I). 

Specifically, Orion Flight Services Inc. requests relief from Part 120.117 and Part 91.147 which implies that a company 

with both a Letter of Authorization and an Air Carrier Certificate must maintain separate programs for each. Therefore, 

Orion Flight Services Inc. is requesting an exemption to combine its drug and alcohol testing programs into one for ease 

of administration and to avoid having covered employees who perform duties in both types of operations from having to 

be listed on separate lists. In effect, these covered employees have doubled their rates of random testing. 

I believe this request would be in the public interest for the following reasons: 

• Less duplication of effort (separate lists for the same pilots at the same office) means less complexity and more 

accurate compliance; 

• Lower costs of administering the program translates to increased efficiency sind lower cost of service to,the public; 

• Covered employees are not "penalized" with increased testing rates just because they perform duties in both 

operations. 

Exercising this exemption will not adversely afiEbct safety since each covered employee is still included in the drug and 

alcohol testing program. An argument can be made that the program will be more effective by reducing complexity and 

redundancy. For example, a covered employee on two separate lists may be designated for a random drug test for both 

lists in the same quarter. One can envision the paperwork confiision that could result. With one list, the testing rates for 

each enjployee will be unaffected and administration of one program will be much easier than two side by side. 

In summary, Orion Flight Services lac. requests an exemption from 91.147 and 120.117 by being able to maintain one 

drug and alcohol testing program and one covered employee list for both the LOA and the Air Carrier Certificate. 

Safety and effectiveness will be unaffected and likely enhanced. 

ffiLAJeff Wanke, President 

iwanke(a),orionflightservices.com 

525 W. 20"" Ave. • Oshkosh, Wl 54902 • Phone 920-424-8090 • Fax 920-424-8091 

Email: customerservice@orionflightservices.com • Website: vvww.OrionFlightServices.com
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7016

GARRY DAVID GALLARDO , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. R. HUDGINS, Warden, FCI Gilmer , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv - 00020

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : June 3, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Garry David Gallardo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Garry David Gallardo, a federal pris oner, appeals the district court’s order s
d ismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denying reconsideration. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gallardo v. Hudgins , No. 5:20

- cv - 00020

- JPB

- JPM (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 29, 2020; Mar. 17, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

∗ Although the notice of appeal was received by the district court after expiration of the appeal period, Gallardo has provided this Court a declaration under penalty of perjury that he gave his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing before the pe riod expired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(B). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over the appeal.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 accompanying quarterly report of Kosmos Energy Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian F. Maxted, Director and 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 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 Company. |

 
| Date:   June 6, 2011 | */s/ Brian F. Maxted*                                                   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Brian   F. Maxted                                                       |
|                      | Director   and Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
Exhibit 32.1





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





RE:     Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





Ladies and Gentlemen:





In connection with the Quarterly Report of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.





The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





/s/ Sarah Newell


Sarah Newell


Vice President


The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.,


as Trustee of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I








May 9, 2019
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
Parent
------

FSF Financial Corp.


                                     Percentage                State of
Subsidiaries                           Owned                 Incorporation
------------                           -----                 -------------

First Federal fsb (a)                   100%                 United States


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

(a)  Because FSF Financial  Corporation  neither  completed  its initial  public
     offering not conducted any operations prior to the year ended September 30,
     1994, the operations of First Federal fsb are included in the  consolidated
     financial  statements  contained in the 1994 Annual Report to  Stockholders
     incorporated  herein by reference.  First Federal fsb became a wholly owned
     subsidiary of FSF Financial Corp. on October 6, 1994.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive Officer of Garrison CapitalInc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GarrisonCapital Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) [Omitted];

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 13, 2013

 

 

** **
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LORENE FOREMAN; EARNEST A.

FOREMAN,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

ROBERT FREEDMAN, an individual; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-55124

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01187-MMARBB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2016** 

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Lorene and Earnest A. Foreman appeal pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in their action alleging claims under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). We have

FILED

JUN 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We affirm. 

Even assuming a cause of action could be alleged based on disability or

handicap, the district court properly granted summary judgment because the

Foremans failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their

physical impairments qualify as disabilities under the ADA or handicaps under the

FHA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (defining disability under the ADA as a “physical

or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more [of a person’s] major

life activities”); 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h)(1) (same definition for handicap under the

FHA); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d

1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set

forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory

allegations.”). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the Foremans’ state law claims and dismissing them

without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc.,

715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (once a district court dismisses the only

claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it does not abuse its discretion in

dismissing the remaining state law claims). 

2 14-55124
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Foremans’

motions for appointment of counsel because the Foremans failed to demonstrate

extraordinary circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.

2009) (setting forth standard of review and exceptional circumstances requirement

for appointment of counsel). 

We reject as without merit the Foremans’ contention that defendants refused

to answer interrogatories. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.

3 14-55124
#### Carl F. POLLER, Appellant, v. Frieda F. POLLER, Appellee.

No. 70-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 23, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.14


Summary of Directors’ Compensation
NewMarket Corporation (the “Company”) pays the following quarterly fees for non-employee committee membership: 
	
				
	Audit Committee Member
	$
	1,250
	


	Audit Committee Chairman
	4,375
	


	Compensation Committee Chairman
	3,125
	


	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chairman
	2,500
	





The Company pays each of its non-employee directors a quarterly fee of $20,000. In addition to this amount, the Company pays the Lead Director a quarterly fee of $6,250. The Company does not pay employee members of the Board of Directors separately for their service on the Board of Directors or its committees. 
Any director who was elected to the Board of Directors on or before February 23, 1995 and who retires from the Board of Directors will receive $12,000 per year for life after age 60. The $12,000 is payable in quarterly installments. The retirement payments to former directors may be discontinued under certain circumstances. 
Under the 2014 Incentive Compensation and Stock Plan (“the Plan”), each non-employee director is awarded on each July 1 that number of whole shares of the Company’s common stock that, when multiplied by the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the immediately preceding business day equals as nearly as possible but does not exceed $60,000. The shares of the Company’s common stock awarded under the Plan are nonforfeitable and the recipient directors immediately and fully vest in shares of the Company’s common stock issued under the Plan. Subject only to such limitations on transfer as may be specified by applicable securities laws, directors may sell their shares under the Plan at any time.
----

Action brought on 18 November 2004 by Ms D. Beyatli and Mr A. Candan against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-455/04)

(2005/C 57/43)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 November 2004 by Ms D. Beyatli, Nicosia, Cyprus and Mr A. Candan, Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Mr A. Demetriades, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are Cypriot nationals whose mother tongue is Turkish. They applied for a position of assistant administrator in the context of Open Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for Cypriot citizens. The notice of competition required that candidates have a thorough knowledge of the Greek language. The applicants failed to receive a sufficient number of points in test (e), which was in the Greek language, and were thus not admitted to the oral tests.

The applicants challenge this decision, submitting that the requirement that candidates should have a thorough knowledge of Greek is discriminatory, given that not all Cypriot citizens have Greek as their mother tongue. According to the applicants this requirement violates Article 12 EC and Articles 1d and 27 of the Staff Regulations. They further allege that Article 3 of Regulation 401/2004 (1) limits recruitment only to those having one of the existing 11 official languages as their main language and is thus not proportionate with the objectives of the European Union and its intention to integrate Turkish speaking Cypriots within the European Union.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 401/2004 of 23 February 2004 introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, special temporary measures for recruitment of officials of the European Communities, OJ L 67, 05/03/2004, p.1

----
|   | (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 Company. |

|   | /s/ Zeng Yan                                                                                              |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Zeng Yan                                                                                                  |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)  |   |
#### People, Respondent, v Silvio Reyes, Appellant.

Motion to extend time to seek leave to appeal to Court of Appeals dismissed. Memorandum: Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals has already been denied by order of a Judge of that Court dated January 31, 1991 [77 NY2d 842]. Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
EXHIBIT 13

                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

      In connection with this annual report on Form 20-F of Grupo Elektra, S.A.
de C.V. for the period ended December 31, 2002, Javier Sarro Cortina, Chief
Executive Officer of Grupo Elektra, S.A. de C.V. and Rodrigo Pliego Abraham,
Chief Financial Officer of Grupo Elektra, S.A. de C.V., each hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. This Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 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 this Form 20-F for the period ended
December 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Grupo Elektra, S.A. de C.V.

Date: June 30, 2003
                                       /s/ Javier Sarro Cortina
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Javier Sarro Cortina
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: June 30, 2003
                                       /s/ Rodrigo Pliego Abraham
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Rodrigo Pliego Abraham
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Grupo Elektra, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by Grupo
Elektra, S.A. de C.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.