alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.13



 





Exhibit 10.13




Summary of Certain Compensation for

Directors of Park National Corporation




     Annual Retainer and Meeting Fees




     Each director of Park National Corporation (“Park”) who is not an employee of Park or one of
Park’s subsidiaries (a “non-employee director”) receives, on the date of the regular meeting of the
Park Board of Directors held during the fourth fiscal quarter, an annual retainer in the form of
120 common shares awarded under the Park National Corporation Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors
of Park National Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Directors’ Stock Plan”). At the January 17,
2006 meeting of the Park Board of Directors, the Board approved an increase in the cash
compensation to be paid to directors from that which had been paid during the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005. Since January 18, 2006, each non-employee director has received $1,000 for each
meeting of the Park Board of Directors attended and $400 for each meeting of a committee of the
Park Board of Directors attended. If the date of a meeting of the full Board of Directors is
changed from that provided for by resolution of the Board and a non-employee director is not able
to attend the rescheduled meeting, he or she receives the meeting fee as though he or she attended
the meeting. In addition, since January 18, 2006, each member of the Executive Committee of the
Park Board of Directors has received a $2,500 annual cash retainer and each member of the Audit
Committee of the Park Board of Directors (other than the Chair) has received a $2,000 annual cash
retainer. Since January 18, 2006, the Chair of the Audit Committee has received a $5,000 annual
cash retainer.



     Each non-employee director of Park also serves on the board of directors of one of Park’s
subsidiary banks and receives, on the date of the regular meeting of the Park Board of Directors
held during the fourth fiscal quarter, an annual retainer in the form of 60 common shares of Park
awarded under the Directors’ Stock Plan and, in some cases, a specified amount of cash for such
service as well as fees for attendance at meetings of the board of directors of the appropriate
Park subsidiary bank (and committees of that board).



     C. Daniel DeLawder, William T. McConnell, William A. Phillips and David L. Trautman receive no
compensation for serving as members of the Board of Directors of Park or of any subsidiary of Park.



     Other Compensation




     William T. McConnell is employed by The Park National Bank, a subsidiary of Park, in a
non-executive officer capacity. In such capacity, he received the amount of $33,000 during the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the “2006 fiscal year). William A. Phillips is employed by
Century National Bank, a subsidiary of Park, in a non-executive officer capacity. In such
capacity, he also received the amount of $33,000 during the 2006 fiscal year.
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 Cutter & Buck Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2003 ("the Report"), I, Frances M. Conley, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



|Dated:    July 29, 2003 |  |                                                                                            
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | /s/FRANCES M. CONLEYFrances M. Conley Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Alvarado Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered December 14, 1988, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
American Coin Merchandising, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-98888 and the registration statement filed on March 23, 2000) on Form S-8 of
American Coin Merchandising, Inc. of our report dated February 23, 2000,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of American Coin Merchandising, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in
the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of American Coin Merchandising,
Inc.



                                   /s/ KPMG LLP
                                   ------------------------
                                       KPMG LLP

Boulder, Colorado
March 24, 2000
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5545]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Availability for Exclusive, Non-Exclusive, or 
Partially-Exclusive Licensing of an Invention Concerning a Radiation 
Detector System for Locating and Identifying Special Nuclear Material 
in Moving Vehicles

AGENCY: Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the 
invention set forth in ``Radiation Detector System for Locating and 
Identifying Special Nuclear Material in Moving Vehicles,'' U.S. Patent 
8,110,807, issued February 7, 2012. This invention is owned by the U.S. 
Government and is available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance 
with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of the 
results of federally-funded research and development.

ADDRESSES: Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Attn: General 
Counsel, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Mail Stop 6201, Fort Belvoir VA 
22060-6201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Licensing or patent issues, Ellen 
Klann, Patent Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Defense Threat 
Reduction Agency, telephone: (703) 767-4561, fax: (703) 767-4550.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention uses a series of combined 
passive neutron and gamma ray sensors and sensor aggregators, 
systematically placed along a path of commercial traffic, for example 
an airport runway, combined with a pulsed source of monoenergetic gamma 
rays and low energy neutrons. The pulsed source produces a short 
interrogation pulse of monoenergetic gamma rays and low energy 
neutrons. These gamma rays induce a fission reaction in any fissile 
material in their path, such as in a moving vehicle, creating gamma 
rays and neutrons. The passive sensors located in the path of the 
moving vehicle detect the resultant gamma and neutron products of the 
reaction.

    Dated: March 2, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012-5545 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
RESUMEN DIAG SEROEPIDEMIOLOGICO 2007

MES 3 ABC EITB VIAA

ENERO 1930 83 247

FEBRERO 1293 0 15

MARZO 4312 121 54

ABRIL 6512 195 4

MAYO 7216 355 248

JUNIO 8976 300 100

JULIO 5984 78 58

AGOSTO 4400 80 45

SEPTIEMBRE 2570 231 138

OCTUBRE 2640 327 402

NOVIEMBRE 4877 364 234

DICIEMBRE 4048 81 54

TOTAL 54758 2215 1599
ICO 2007
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                                   0000948945

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                     2338345
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              5998127
<ALLOWANCES>                                               (411950)
<INVENTORY>                                                 889917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           2008767
<PP&E>                                                   170041694
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (25219078)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           217498008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     22501588
<BONDS>                                                  169737608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                25258812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              25258812
<SALES>                                                   62337218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          62337218
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             59335261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        20132735
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (16911939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             (16911939)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (16911939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (16911939)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0



</TABLE>
#### Bradley Shankles, Appellant, v Ann M. Shankles, Respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Colby, J.), entered September 18, 1989, as directed him to pay $75 per week pendente lite maintenance and $150 per week pendente lite child support for his two minor children, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court entered November 14, 1989, as, upon reargument, directed him to pay $50 per week pendente lite maintenance and $100 per week pendente lite child support, and declined to credit certain past payments against pendente maintenance and child support.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered September 18, 1989, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered November 14, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered November 14, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

We reject the claim by the plaintiff that the pendente lite maintenance and child support awards are excessive in that they render him unable to meet his own expenses. The record reveals that in 1988 the husband earned over $59,000 as a police officer, as well as receiving gross rental income of approximately $7,200 per year from an apartment the parties owned. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the maintenance and support obligations strip the husband of "income and assets necessary to meet his * * * own expenses” *(Chachkes v Chachkes,*107 AD2d 786, 786-787; *see also, Wesler v Wesler,*133 AD2d 627).

In addition, although the husband may be entitled to a credit for certain payments in determining arrears, under the circumstances we find this issue is best resolved at the trial of the action rather than as part of a pendente lite award *(see, Rogers v Rogers,*151 AD2d 738; *Neumark v Neumark,*97 AD2d 537; *Peltz v Peltz,*56 AD2d 519). Similarly, we find that the court correctly deferred to the trial court the determination of whether or not the wife is capable of working. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
bFFlCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

; 

AUSTIN 

eRO”ERbEL‘ERe 

AITORNLlOEHLlAL 
-NO. "Aauwt $ 1,oao.00 

667 

to mot wide ia a 8luung twa 

or ltr ~nnal wraod wr~hm et- 

. 
668 

Uer o .~nIo r l x p n44 l tatutory authority for Chapter 3, .~ ._. . 

In4uruaoo Corpor.tIonr;.to bwrow saneyi aelmer 14 tna-4 4ny 

8t.tutar# prohlbltica .geirut tbr l x6roI66 or ruoh payer. ?h.n 

14, or aown, no ..t.tutor~ autixorlurtloa ?or tb8 liiuano* and 

8ul.a or then propond 6.b6ntur.s. ibltrar 16 then aturtutory 

prohIDitlon 4pin6t t:w l xer8ioe o? l uoh gowar. 'X6 think t&t 

th6 propooed dob6ntureb by tha 'ilnion fl464rv0 "lfa Ia6urm106 Cmp45y 044 b4 6i4tiaaul4h4d fr4a the 04rtiri4~t4 0r the c04t~ry 

lpa&l.~w~8cOaP wh1.h *.I dlrpprovod irr .ur Opinion tfo. 

t; borhw ronoy fiai%:.,4: ~r.o~~~~~a~;~t~v~~*~o 

th. lldtation wbioh my b6 ol408d up66 it by the 1.d o? tbo iow.rmmt to uhloh it l. n.po..Iblo. By ~..~IIQJ snd 4.111~ t& abovo 

untlon6d 66bontur6m, th6 Union Xo4orv6 Ll?e Iaaur6no6 Campuif 8-k. 

to l xorolre it8 &n'.ro~tI~. . . . OOrPoratIon to,borrar mon.y, but 

46.k. to oontruot with t&a. ?ror wR6r it a.~~box'r.u mo..~, th.t 

ru4h.m.n.~ -111 b. D.id hot l t 4 Dtit%Otli& time, uad a t l partioulru rata or iaer44t, 4nb that It ri.Ll 84 mid baok oalf rro~ . 

4p.0I.1 rud. 

In Oplnlon Do, 0.5866, fhI# a.putaont rradud M opln1.a bare6 qon the 8.b qu..tloll 44 iB lnvo1v.d In thI8 oplnloon. 

Th4 pFOpo4Od 44bMC~~ airfU4 4OIUWhat rlcor th0 OUti?iOaw pcr444d 

upon in Oplnlon Xo. O-8846, but it 1. l pgrrent th.t t& 4.6.ntI.1 

*loDent. or. the 4aa.. TM propo6.d d.b.nturmr aontaia aa tutoandlt1on.l proml.. to w o.t o? the .#oI?Io Su.d, at . oort.ln CIB., 

when .uoh fund I. o nmted l mtetod in tin dobontaru. The only 

thu that ~l.tia&.h.r tb propo8.d ddWd?O8 frOr l re@u&r bond 

OS the oomp6.y 14 th68 th4y p?Uib fOr tbr pylrnt O? mama ,out o? 

. Q.rt1obd.r ruma. 

It 18 4tat.d by Conah. 08 In4~~4ne0, Vol. 1, pq. 

l * l l ADOW the waqe-do pour. .a@04 br 

. ..rporat1on r0ra.d to ..rrl .n in.ur...o bla.... 

luy b6 inrntioned the rI&ht to aoqulr. .nd hold 8urh 

rod utate 44 l4 .eou4ary 446 proper for futur8 

u.. in ..rryIm on it. bu.in.66, to borrow ron.~ 

to Q.y ‘i..66.., Or t0 9X’Ot.Ot it. 8.4.t.. l l l * 

(To the l ao 8rroot. ~614rl66n Jurirprudraoo, Vol. ~9, 

peg* 84) 

I4 iii4w4r to th4 .bor* 4tated qu44tloa you 4r4r8~.tfully dvled th&t than I. no 6tatutory grohibltfon prohlbltM In4ur0ne4 ooaponq 4uoh 84 th4 Union Reserve Ll?. Itmuraaoo Cow 

pany from borrowing nonay Ia thr m6uner prepomrb bl 4ei4 0orp.n~ 

by the ln.u.no. .nd 8.1. of ~18 gepoaod dobmturo., uhlah uo YII 
669 

.vld,a.o. of t&. rpr~$ b.rr.u.d~b~ the raid 0.a~. 

Trootlng thlm en4uor4 your Inquiry, w4 4x-4 

Tour4 *err. truly 

ATTGRNXY Ok.WiiRAt O?TXXAS
#### Nancy S. EDIS, n/k/a Nancy S. Sweney, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William B. EDIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 85CA1276.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

March 26, 1987.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1987.

Certiorari Denied (Edis) Sept. 8, 1987.

Edward L. Kirkwood, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Stephan E. Uslan, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

STERNBERG, Judge.

This is an action concerning arrearages of child support ordered paid in a divorce action. Despite an assignment of all her child support rights against the defendant father to the Colorado Department of Social Services, the trial court awarded the plaintiff mother interest payments on the child support arrearages. We agree with the father’s contentions that the mother’s execution of the document assigning these rights precluded this result and, therefore, reverse.

When the parties were divorced in 1971, the mother was awarded custody of the four children and child support. In January 1976, the mother signed a document entitled “Assignment of Rights to Support, Pursuant to Title IV of the Social Security Act as Amended” which read, in pertinent part, as follows:

> “I ... hereby assign and transfer unto the Colorado Department of Social Ser*955vices, all the support rights (past, present, and future) which I have against William B. Edis, for the support of [the children] for whom I am applying for or receiving public assistance and care.”

In 1983, the trial court granted the mother’s motion for *ex parte*entry of judgment against the father for arrearages in child support. The father then filed a motion for relief from judgment, and the Department was permitted to intervene in the case to seek a judgment against the father for $17,892.80 in arrearages that were due during the period in which the mother was receiving public assistance.

The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court was correct in treating the Department’s failure to claim interest on the arrearages due as constituting a relinquishment to the mother of the right to seek interest accrued on the arrearages. In addition to its judgment in favor of the Department, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the mother and against the father which included an award of $18,-651.87 in interest.

The mother’s assignment to the Department of her support rights against the father, for the period in which she received public assistance, was total and unconditional. Under Colorado law, if a claim has been assigned in full, the assign-ee is the real party in interest with the right to maintain an action thereon. *Hoeppner Construction Co., Inc. v. United States,*287 F.2d 108 (10th Cir.1960). Consequently, the mother had no entitlement to either the payments in issue or in any interest thereon. Thus, the trial court erred in allowing the mother to pursue a claim against the father which had been fully and unconditionally assigned to the Department and had not been re-assigned back to the mother.

The judgment awarding interest to the mother is reversed.

SMITH and BABCOCK, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Clean Energy Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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 such officers 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.



|                       |                                
|---------------------- | -------------------------------
|Dated: August 13, 2009 | /s/ Tai-ming Ou                
|                       | Tai-ming Ou,                   
|                       | Chief Executive Officer        
|                       | (Principal Executive Officer)  
|                       |                                
|Dated: August 13, 2009 | /s/ Shannon Yan                
|                       | Shannon Yan,                   
|                       | Interim Chief Financial Officer
|                       | (Principal Financial Officer)
# L_2006021EN.01001201.xml

| 25.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 21/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 21/12

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 118/2006

of 24 January 2006

fixing the standard fee per farm return for the 2006 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 79/65/EEC of 15 June 1965 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Economic Community (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 of 13 July 1983 on certain detailed implementing rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings (2), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 provides that a standard fee shall be paid by the Commission to the Member States for each duly completed farm returns forwarded to it within the period prescribed in Article 3 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 provides that a standard fee shall be paid by the Commission to the Member States for each duly completed farm returns forwarded to it within the period prescribed in Article 3 of that Regulation.

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 2189/2004 (3) fixed the amount of the standard fee for the 2005 accounting year at EUR 142 per farm return. The trend in costs and its effects on the costs of completing the farm return justify a revision of the fee. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2189/2004 (3) fixed the amount of the standard fee for the 2005 accounting year at EUR 142 per farm return. The trend in costs and its effects on the costs of completing the farm return justify a revision of the fee.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the Farm Accountancy Data Network,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard fee provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 shall be fixed at EUR 145.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply for the 2006 accounting year.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 January 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ 109, 23.6.1965, p. 1859/65. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 660/2004 (OJ L 104, 8.4.2004, p. 97).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 190, 14.7.1983, p. 25. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1192/2005 (OJ L 194, 26.7.2005, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 373, 21.12.2004, p. 20.

3

---