alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.16
 FUEL TECH, INC.
 Sr. Vice President Sales FUEL CHEM®  Sales Commission Plan
 1. OBJECTIVES; EFFECTIVE DATE
 Objectives
 Effective Date
 2. DEFINITIONS
      3. COMMISSION
 Officer Commission




---



##### 



4. CALCULATION AND PAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS
 Payments
 Quarterly Payments
 Annual Payment of Contingent Commission st
 5. ADDITIONAL TERMS
 Dispute Resolution
 Modification, Amendment or Termination
 2




---



##### 



Payout upon Termination of Employment
 5.4 No Effect on Employment . This Plan is not intended to and does not in any way alter
the at-will nature of the Officers employment with Fuel Tech, nor does it constitute a guarantee
of employment for a specified period. Employment with Fuel Tech is at will, which means that
either the Officer or Fuel Tech may terminate the employment relationship at any time, without or
without cause or prior notice. This Plan does not create a contractual relationship or any
contractually enforceable rights between the Company or its wholly owned subsidiaries and the
employee.
 5.5 Disclaimer . There is no guarantee that this Plan will be effective in subsequent
years, and, if effective, the terms, conditions and provisions of any such plan shall be determined
in the sole and absolute discretion of the Compensation and Nominating Committee of the Board of
Directors of Fuel Tech.
 3
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mark T. YATES.

No. 87-KK-0710.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Yates, Mark T.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-K-72; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 86-2715.

Denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Global Services Partners Acquisition
      Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2007 (the
‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I Rahul Prakash, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
      of
      the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      December 13, 2007




By: /s/
      Rahul
      Prakash


Rahul
      Prakash


Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
Exhibit
31.2




Certification


Pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act




I,
Michael Hlavsa, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Fund.com Inc.;




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under 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 other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;




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




(c)           Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




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




(a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




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




Date:           November
14, 2008




/s/ Michael
Hlavsa


Name:     Michael
Hlavsa


Title:
            Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Accounting Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2270-2271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-726]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee 
(SITAC)

[[Page 2271]]

will meet on January 31, 2012, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover 
Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania 
Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions 
that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and 
instrumentation equipment and technology.

Agenda

Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.
    2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
    3. Industry Presentations.
    4. New Business.

Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
Sec. Sec.  10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 
participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#540d22312020317a0724263d3a33312614363d277a303b377a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f56796a7b7b6a215c7f7d6661686a7d4f6d667c216b606c21686079">[email protected]</span></a> no later than January 24, 2012.
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to 
the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time 
before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of 
public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee 
suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. 
Springer.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the General Counsel, formally determined on September 27, 2011 pursuant 
to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. app. 2 Sec.  10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing 
with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. 
export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to 
public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec.  10(a)(1) and 
10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the 
public.
    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-726 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Robert COSTANTINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-0740.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 9, 1988.

*339Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tanja Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the conviction of the defendant. However, we reverse and remand for resentencing to score the defendant’s conviction for two counts of aggravated assault as third degree felonies. *See Griffin v. State,*509 So.2d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Also, on remand the trial court should set forth written reasons for any departure from the guideline sentence. *Boynton v. State,*473 So.2d 703 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), *cert. denied,*475 U.S. 1029, 106 S.Ct. 1232, 89 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED FOR RESENTENC-ING.

GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
#### Charles SLAY, Jr., Assessor For Rapides Parish, La. v. LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS RAILWAY COMPANY and Louisiana Tax Commission.

No. W88-565.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 14, 1988.

Milling, Benson, Woodward, Hillyer, Pierson & Miller, PLC, Hilton S. Bell, John W. Colbert, Mary G. Holmes, New Orleans, for defendant/applicant.

Robert H. Abbott III, Baton Rouge, for defendant/respondent.

Bernard Kramer, Alexandria, for plaintiff/respondent.

Before FORET, LABORDE and YELYERTON, JJ.

*WRIT DENIED:*There appears to be no. error in the trial court’s judgment maintaining venue in Rapides Parish; as LSA-R.S. 47:1998 specifically gives taxpayers and assessors the right to bring suit, and regulates the procedure for bringing suit, including venue. *Dow Chemical Co. v. Pitre,*421 So.2d 847 (La.1982).
50070.

#### SYKES v. THE STATE.

Bell, Chief Judge.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced for the possession of 29 cases of beer for the purpose of sale without first having obtained a license.

1. Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial because a state agent in his testimony identified him as the manager of a country club and as having observed him previously driving a vehicle containing beer. Although neither fact alleges a criminal offense, the trial court struck the response of the witness *262and gave the jury cautionary instructions. There was no error.

Submitted January 6, 1975

Decided March 12, 1975.

*Reed & Dunn, Robert J. Reed,*for appellant.

2. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of the state’s case. The state’s evidence reveals that defendant was stopped while driving a vehicle loaded with 29 cases of tax-paid beer. After having been advised of his rights and in response to inquiry as to his intention with respect to disposition of the beer, defendant responded that he intended to sell cups at 55 cents each and give the beer away. From that response, plus the quantity of beer, the jury could reasonably infer that defendant had this beer for the purpose of sale. As the evidence authorized the verdict, no error occurred in denying the motion for directed verdict. *Welch v. State,*130 Ga. App. 18, 19 (202 SE2d 223).

3. It is argued that the trial court erred in charging Code Ann. § 58-726 in its entirety, thereby confusing the jury. The statute is bifurcated. The first part, under which the defendant was accused, proscribes the sale, offering for sale, or possession for the purpose of sale of any malt liquor, without first having obtained a license so to do. The second part holds possession of more than 1440 fluid ounces of *untaxed*malt liquor is a misdemeanor. The evidence clearly established that the beer seized was tax-paid. Therefore, the latter part of the statute did not apply. Immediately preceding the charge complained of the trial judge had instructed the jury that the accusation alleged that the defendant’s offense was the wrongful possession of beer for the purpose of sale without first having obtained a license. Read as a whole we do not think that the instructions misled the jury and a new trial is not required.

4. The remaining enumerations are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.*

*263
      *Douglas E. Smith, Solicitor,*for appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

EDDIE RAY GRAY,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, BERNADETTE MASON, FACILITY MANAGER OF SCI MAHANOY, JOSHUA SHAPIRO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, WARREN COUNTY

COMMON PLEAS JUDGMENTS OF

SENTENCES AT: CP

- 62

- CR

- 0000264

- 2012

AND CP

- 62

- CR

- 0000080

- 2013,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 47 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of April , 2020, the “Emergency Motion Seeking Release

from Respondent[ ’ ]s Custody” and the “Motion to Expedite King’s Bench Proceedings ”

are DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING 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 of World Trophy Outfitters, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Don Peay, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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:

 

|   | a. | the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | b. | the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Don Peay |
|--------|--------------|

Don Peay, President and Chief Executive Officer 

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

August 14, 2007
Exhibit 10.7 


 


Execution
Version


 


SUBSCRIPTION
AGREEMENT


 


TO:     The
Directors of Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”).


 


The undersigned
hereby subscribes for 5,750,000 shares of common stock (the “Shares”) of the Company. In consideration for the issue
of the Shares, the undersigned hereby agrees and undertakes to pay $25,000 to the Company.


 


We agree
to take the Shares subject to the Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws of the Company and we authorize you to enter the following
name and address in the stockholders ledger of the Company:


 


		Name:	Rodgers Capital, LLC



 


		Address:	535 Eastview Way






Woodside,
CA 94062


 


Dated:   September 24,
2020


 


	Signed:	/s/ Thurman J. Rodgers	 






Name:  Thurman J.
Rodgers 


Title:  Manager


 


Dated:     September 24,
2020


 


Accepted:


 


RODGERS SILICON VALLEY ACQUISITION
CORP.


 


	Signed:	/s/ Thurman J. Rodgers	 






Name:  Thurman J. Rodgers 


Title:  Chief Executive Officer


 


Dated:     September 24,,
2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997                        
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997            
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997                       
<CASH>                                             866                       
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,454                       
<ALLOWANCES>                                       178                       
<INVENTORY>                                      2,542                       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,979                       
<PP&E>                                           1,195                       
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,880                       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,290                       
<BONDS>                                              0                       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       
<COMMON>                                            12                       
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,591                       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,880                       
<SALES>                                         21,765                       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,765                       
<CGS>                                           11,342                         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,313                        
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    76                       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,624)                        
<INCOME-TAX>                                       193                       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,817)                       
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                        
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       
<CHANGES>                                            0                       
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,817)                        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.13)                        
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.13)                         
        

</TABLE>
#### Vernon Tyrone YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BF-445.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 29, 1986.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Larry G. Bryant, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Norma J. Munge-nast, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, was found guilty after a jury trial of vehicular homicide and was sentenced to five years incarceration. He now raises three issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion.

A sentencing guidelines scoresheet was prepared in this case, reflecting a recommended sentence of community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration. The trial court departed from the recommended sentence, however, and imposed a sentence of five years incarceration, citing the following as the reason for departure:

> Defendant’s lengthy record for traffic offenses demonstrates his inability to obey the law. He has five convictions for careless driving, seven for speeding, two other traffic violations and two convictions for driving while license suspended. Defendant’s driving represents a serious danger to the safety of pedestrians and other motorists.

*115Appellant now contends that since all of these offenses, with the exception of the two convictions for driving while license suspended or revoked, were *civil*infractions, the court erred in using them as a basis for departing from the guidelines. In particular, appellant argues the departure is prohibited by Rule 3.701(d)(ll), Fla.R. Crim.P., which states that “reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to prior arrests without conviction.” We disagree, and affirm the trial court’s departure.

The presentence investigation prepared prior to the sentencing hearing in this case shows numerous incidents of speeding and other traffic offenses between 1982 and 1984, including a speeding ticket two days prior to the accident (for driving 60 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. speed zone) and a speeding ticket three weeks after the accident (for driving 50 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone).. The evidence presented at trial indicated that appellant was speeding in a 30 m.p.h. residential area at the time he struck and killed the six-year-old victim in the instant case. In light of these facts, the trial court’s reason for departure can be viewed as more than a mere reference to his past traffic violations, but rather as an indication of a pattern of dangerous activity posing a threat to the safety of others. *See Williams v. State,*480 So.2d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1986). Moreover, the use of appellant’s civil traffic violations does not violate Rule 3.701(d)(ll) since the offenses did not result in arrests and could not have resulted in convictions.

Accordingly, appellant’s judgment and sentence is hereby AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
FOR PUBLICATION



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

J OHN S TURGEON
, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

H ERBERT F ROST , in h is official capacity as Alaska Regional Director of the National Park Service; G REG D UDGEON ; A NDEE S EARS ; D AVID B ERNHARDT , Secretary of the Interior; D AVID V ELA , in his official capacity as Acting Director of the National Park Service; T HE N ATIONAL P ARK S ERV ICE ; T HE U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT O F T HE I NTERIOR
, Defendants

- Appellees. No. 13

- 36165

D.C. No. 3:11

- cv

- 00183

- HRH

ORDER

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed November 1, 2019

Before: Je rome Farris, Dorothy W. Nelson, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.2 S TURGEON V

. F ROST

ORDER

Appellant John Sturgeon’s request for action is GRANTED . In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sturgeon v. Frost , 139 S. Ct. 1066 (2019), the opinion of this Court dated October 2, 2017, 872 F.3d 927, is VACATED and judgment is entered REVERSING the district court’s judgment. We remand this case to the district court with directions to enter judgment in favor of Sturgeon consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.