alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.6**
**Director and Named Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements**
*Compensation Arrangements for Directors*
     The company has an oral arrangement to pay non-employee members of the Company’s Board ofDirectors compensation for their service on the board. All non-employee directors receive $3,000per meeting for attending in-person meetings of the Board of Directors and meetings of Boardcommittees not held in connection with a regular Board meeting. Non-employee directors alsoreceive $1,000 per meeting lasting longer than one hour for participating in telephonic meetings ofthe Board of Directors and $500 for Board committee telephonic meetings. In addition, non-employeedirectors who serve on the Audit Committee receive an annual retainer of $15,000 and those whoserve on the Executive and Corporate Governance Committees receive an annual retainer of $10,000.The non-employee chair of the Audit, the Executive and Corporate Governance, and the CompensationCommittees receives an annual retainer of $30,000, $15,000 and $10,000, respectively. Thenon-employee chair of the Board of Directors receives an annual retainer of $100,000, which is paidin quarterly installments. Directors are also reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection withattending meetings.
     One director, Dr. Sancilio, uses office space in Jupiter, Florida that the Company has leasedfrom a third party. The Company paid $92,000 per year for this office space, but ceased payingrent in April 2005.
*Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers*
     The Company has certain oral compensation arrangements, as described below, with its NamedExecutive Officers. The Company also has written compensation arrangements with certain of theNamed Executive Officers, as described elsewhere in and filed as separate exhibits to this AnnualReport on Form 10-K.
     *Base Salary*
     The annual base salaries for the Named Executive Officers who are still employed by theCompany, other than those set forth in written compensation arrangements, are as follows:     **Named Executive Officer** **2005 Base Salary**      Timothy R. Wright $456,000 William H. Underwood $230,000 Gregory S. Bentley $255,000 Michael W. George $250,000 Matthew E.Czajkowski $325,000 
     *Perquisites*
     The only perquisite available to the Named Executive Officers is enrollment in an executivehealth program. The Named Executive Officers otherwise are eligible for the same benefits accordedall full-time employees.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          86,727
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                       732
<INVENTORY>                                      3,996
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,804
<PP&E>                                           7,615
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,295
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,067
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,606
<SALES>                                         27,489
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,489
<CGS>                                           18,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (32,390)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (145)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,899)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (29,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.45)


</TABLE>
NUMBER 13

- 10

- 00 269

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________
PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY
, Appellant
,

v.

JOHN T. HANNIGAN, C.R.N.A. AND FRED L. PEREZ, M.D.
, Appellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 398 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________ _



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

T he appellant's brief in the above cause was due on October 29, 2010 . On

November 9, 2010 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been

timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of2

receipt of this letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not

significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response

has been received from appellant.

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a

m otion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 16th day of December , 20 10

.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2392** 

EBRAHIM RADBOD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. GABRIEL ARIAS, Corporal, Howard County Police Department , Defendant

– Appellee, and HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND , Defendant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00897

- RDB )

Submitted : April 29, 2013 Decided: May 17, 2013

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ebrahim Radbod, Appellant Pro Se. David Reid Moore, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: Ebrahim Radbod appeals the district court’s order entering judgment on the jury’s verdict in his civil action in favor of defendant Corporal Gabriel Arias. We grant Radbod leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. Although there is no transcript of the jury trial in the record before
us, we may authorize the preparation of a transcript at government expense where the litigant proceeds IFP and has shown the existence of a substantial qu estion for appeal. 28 U.S.C.
§ 753(f) (2006)
. A fter reviewing the parties’ informal briefs, we conclude that Radbod has not raised a substantial question for appeal. See Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp. , 192 F. Supp. 903, 905 (D. Md. 1959) (defining substantial question) . Accordingly, we deny his request for a t ranscript at government expense , see Rhodes v. Corps of Eng’rs of U.S. Army , 589 F.2d 358, 359 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), deny as moot his motion to expedite the decision on his IFP application, and affirm the district court’s order entering judgmen t on the jury’s verdict. Radbod v. Arias , No. 1:10

- cv - 00897

- RDB (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2012). 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
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:FAA-2011-0915; Dir ID 2010-NM-020-AD
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of ICG Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to
his knowledge on the date hereof:



|Date: April 30, 2004 |  | /s/JEFFREY R. PEARLJeffrey R. Pearl
Interim Chief Executive Officer                                                           
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2004 |  | /s/RICHARD E. FISH, JR.Richard E. Fish, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                           DUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.
                        EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION
               (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

                                              Quarter Ended June 30,1997 
                                              -------------------------- 
                                               Primary      Fully Diluted 
                                               -------      ------------- 
Weighted average shares outstanding            15,100,521     15,100,521  
Dilutive effect of stock performance plans        496,543        517,164  
                                              -----------    -----------  
                                               15,597,064     15,617,685  
                                              -----------    -----------  
                                              -----------    -----------  
Net income                                    $     8,592    $     8,592  
                                              -----------    -----------  
                                              -----------    -----------  
Earnings per share                            $      0.55    $      0.55  
                                              -----------    -----------  
                                              -----------    -----------  

                                                Year Ended June 30, 1997 
                                                ------------------------ 
                                                Primary     Fully Diluted 
                                                -------     ------------- 

Weighted average shares outstanding            15,100,521      15,100,521 
Dilutive effect of stock performance plans        419,718         462,001 
                                              -----------     -----------  
                                               15,520,239      15,562,522 
                                              -----------     -----------  
                                              -----------     -----------  
Income before extraordinary item              $    36,762     $    36,762 
Extraordinary item                                (22,242)        (22,242)
                                              -----------     -----------  
Net income                                    $    59,004     $    59,004 
                                              -----------     -----------  
                                              -----------     -----------  
Earnings per share before extraordinary item  $      2.37     $      2.36 
Extraordinary item                                  (1.43)          (1.43)
                                              -----------     -----------  
Earnings per share                            $      3.80     $      3.79 
                                              -----------     -----------  
                                              -----------     -----------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF APPLIED ANALYTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.
RESTATED TO REFLECT THE ADOPTION IN 1997 OF STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS ("SFAS") NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE". THIS RESTATED SCHEDULE
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BE REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          26,714
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,635
<PP&E>                                          37,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,195
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,673
<SALES>                                         45,010
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,010
<CGS>                                           23,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    506
<INCOME-TAX>                                       177
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 466 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 466

    To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the rule 
   providing for termination of disabled adult child's benefits upon 
                               marriage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 23 (legislative day, February 22), 1995

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the rule 
   providing for termination of disabled adult child's benefits upon 
                               marriage.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RULE PROVIDING FOR TERMINATION OF DISABLED ADULT 
              CHILD'S BENEFITS UPON MARRIAGE.

    (a) In General.--Section 202(d) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 402(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(D), by striking ``or marries,'';
            (2) by striking paragraph (5); and
            (3) in paragraph (6)--
                    (A) by inserting ``(other than by reason of 
                death)'' after ``terminated'',
                    (B) by striking ``(provided no event specified in 
                paragraph (1)(D) has occurred)'', and
                    (C) by striking ``the first month in which an event 
                specified in paragraph (1)(D) occurs'' in subparagraph 
                (C) and inserting ``the month in which the child's 
                death occurs''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 202(d) of such Act (as amended by subsection 
        (a)) is further amended by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), 
        (8), and (9) as paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8), 
        respectively.
            (2) Section 202(s)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(s)(2)) is 
        amended by striking ``So much of subsections (b)(3), (c)(4), 
        (d)(5), (g)(3), and (h)(4) of this section as precedes the 
        semicolon,'' and inserting ``Subsections (b)(3), (c)(4), 
        (g)(3), and (h)(4) of this section''.
            (3) Section 223(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(e)) is 
        amended by striking ``(d)(6)(A)(ii), (d)(6)(B),'' and inserting 
        ``(d)(5)(A)(ii), (d)(5)(B)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to marriages occurring on or after May 1, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
#### T. J. HILL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29632.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 5, 1958.

Herschel B. Cashin, Galveston, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is felony theft; the punishment, two years.

No statement of facts accompanies the record.

Appellant waived a jury and plead guilty before the court. In his motion for new trial, he, for the first time, raises the question of the failure of the court to comply with the terms of Article 494, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., as recently amended, in that no written waiver of counsel waiving the 10 days to prepare for trial appears in the record.

Article 491, V.A.C.C.P., provides: “There shall be no arraignment of a defendant except upon an indictment for a capital offense.” Article 494, supra, provides, in part, as follows: “When the accused is brought into court for the purpose of being arraigned * *

The case .at bar was not a capital offense, and. hence, Article 494, .supra, has no application.

The judgment is affirmed.
Michael Bohannan

9601 Spur 591

Amarillo, Texas

May 27, 2015

Clerk of the Court

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2308

Re: Bohannan v. State

No. PD-0347-15

#1841746

79107-9606

/Jl.Q

JUN 04 2015

'6!

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUN 03 2Tti

Dear Clerk: Abel Acosta, Clerk

Last week I mailed you my Petition for Discretionary Review

in the above styled and numbered cause. I have found that Page

Two contained a drafting error. I have enclosed a corrected Page

Two and would ask that you please substitute it for the erroneous

page previously sent. By copy of this.letter, I am also providing

the Asst. Dist. Att'y a copy of the corrected Page Two.

I am enclosing an additional copy of this letter for

file stamping to verify receipt and substitution. Please return

it to me in the postpaid envelope provided.

Thank you for your time and help and please accept my

apology for this extra hassle.

Sincerely,

cc: William Delmore

file

&££&-

Michael W. Bohannan

806-381-7080
Jimenez. 361 S.W.3d 679, 683 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012). App. Op @ 7-8.

Initially, Bohannan would note that Texas Health and Safety

Code Chapter 841 does not address whether or not the stigmatizing

and qualitatively different criminal punishment that civil

committees are subjected to applies while the very legality and

constitutionality of that commitment is pending resolution through

3

the appellate process. And more so, whether it applies after an

appellate court has already determined a commitment order should

be reversed.

The appellate court's reliance on Jimenez is, at best,

misplaced. Jimenez was convicted of possession of a firearm while,

at the time of that possession, being a convicted felon, under a

final criminal judgment. While that judgment was later overturned

in a habeas action, this court found that the conviction for felon

in possession should stand because be was one at the time of his

possession. Jimenez, 361 S.W.3d 679.

Bohannan was convicted of committing a civil commitment

violation which occurred on April 24, 2011. CR 280-82. This was

after Bohannan had obtained the appellate court's determination

that he had not been provided the process he was due to be committed,

a determination which the State appealed. In the criminal realm,

a prior judgment cannot be used in the punishment of a later act

unless it is a "final" judgment. In Jimenez, the prior criminal

judgment was final at the time it was used to prove felon in

possession (and apparently final at the time of that possession as

well). In this case, the civil commitment remained on appeal at

the time of every violation alleged against Bohannan; acts which

could only be criminal through a valid commitment judgment. And

- 2 -

3

See Footnote #1.

There is no Footnote #4