alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4

Amended Schedule 2.1 to the Directors Deferred Compensation and Benefits Trust Agreement

Schedule 2.1
to the Directors Deferred Compensation and Benefits

Trust Agreement Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements Subject to
Trust

(1) Sunoco, Inc. Directors Deferred Compensation Plan I;

(2) Sunoco, Inc. Directors Deferred Compensation Plan II;

(3) The entire funding for all the Indemnification Agreements with the directors set forth below shall be Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in the aggregate upon a Potential Change in Control, and an amount upon a
Change in Control calculated on the basis of the Indemnification Agreements with the following directors:



|    |  |                     
|--- |  | --------------------
|(a) |  | Robert J. Darnall   
|(b) |  | Ursula O. Fairbairn 
|(c) |  | Thomas P. Gerrity   
|(d) |  | Rosemarie B. Greco  
|(e) |  | James G. Kaiser     
|(f) |  | R. Anderson Pew     
|(g) |  | G. Jackson Ratcliffe
|(h) |  | John W. Rowe        
|(i) |  | John K. Wulff       

(4) Benefits payable to former directors of the Company (or their beneficiaries) in pay status as
of the date of termination of the Sunoco, Inc. Non-Employee Directors Retirement Plan.
The Home Depot, Inc. Management Incentive Plan Fiscal Year 2006


 Exhibit 10.5 
 THE HOME DEPOT, INC. 
 MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN 
 FISCAL YEAR 2006 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 
 On
February 23, 2006, the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of The Home Depot, Inc. approved performance measures to be used to determine payments to the Company’s Executive Officers under the
Company’s Management Incentive Plan for the Company’s 2006 fiscal year. The performance measures are based on actual sales and operating profit measured against specified targets.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Unity National Bank v. John Scroggins

Appellate case numbers: 01-20-00593-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-31933

Trial court: 164th District Court of Harris County

On November 23, 2021, this Court stayed the appellate proceedings in appellate cause 

number 01-20-00593-CV. Before the stay was granted, appellant, Unity National Bank, filed a

second motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. On March 1, 2022, the stay in 

appellate cause number 01-20-00593-CV was lifted.

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing is granted, 

and appellant’s motion for rehearing, if any, is due fifteen days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss___________________

Acting individually

Date: March 1, 2022
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas S. Smith, President and a Director of Superior Silver Mines, Inc. (the Company) do 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 my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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:  August 11, 2008

By:      /s/ Thomas S. Smith

Thomas S. Smith, President and Director
EXHIBIT 32.2
                              BODISEN BIOTECH, INC.
          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 Bodisen Biotech, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dingxiang Yang,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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

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

Date:  March 30, 2004


 /s/ Dingxiang Yang
------------------
Dingxiang Yang
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 4

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 44-6 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 3
Contact

www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-as-60a7695 (LinkedIn)

Top Skills

Commercial Litigation

Trade Secrets

Intellectual Property

Stuart A. S.

President at Brazos Licensing and Development

Los Angeles

Summary

Prior to co-founding WSOU Investments and its affiliate companies,

Stuart served as the General Counsel for Wade & Company, a

venture capital firm and as the managing partner of the Los Angeles

and Century City offices of the international law firm, Reed Smith

LLP. As a 20-year partner in Reed Smith, he was a member of

the commercial litigation group where he specialized in complex

commercial and intellectual property disputes. He serves on the

Board of Directors, The Campbell Hall School and served on the

Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Urban League from January

2005 until December 2017. He received a B.A. from Boston College

and a J.D. from George Washington University.

Experience

Brazos Licensing and Development

President

August 2017 - Present (3 years 4 months)

Waco, Texas, United States

President, Brazos Licensing and Development

Wade & Company

General Counsel

March 2016 - May 2019 (3 years 3 months)

Greater Los Angeles Area

Reed Smith

Partner

January 1997 - March 2016 (19 years 3 months)

Greater Los Angeles Area

Bell, Boyd & Lloyd

Summer Associate, Associate, Partner

September 1989 - December 1996 (7 years 4 months)

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Page 1 of 2

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 44-6 Filed 11/04/20 Page 2 of 3
Education

The George Washington University Law School

JD  · (1986 - 1989)

Boston College

BA, Economics, Philosophy · (1982 - 1986)

Page 2 of 2

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 44-6 Filed 11/04/20 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 99.1**ANNUAL SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE****For Year Ended December 31, 2005*****DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS LLC******DAIMLERCHRYSLER MASTER OWNER TRUST***The undersigned, duly authorized representatives of DaimlerChrysler Financial ServicesAmericas LLC (“DCFS”), pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2004(as amended and supplemented, the “Agreement”), among DaimlerChrysler Wholesale Receivables CompanyLLC, as Seller, DCFS, as Servicer, and DaimlerChrysler Master Owner Trust (the “Trust”), doeshereby certify that: 1. DCFS is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.  2. The undersigned are Servicing Officers and are duly authorized pursuant to theAgreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee, the Trust, any Agentand any Enhancement Providers.  3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year endedDecember 31, 2005 and of its performance under the Agreement was conducted under oursupervision.  4. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of our knowledge, performedin all material respects all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout suchyear and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or iscontinuing except as set forth in paragraph 5 below.  5. There were no defaults made by the Servicer in the performance of itsobligations under the provisions of the Agreement during the year ended December 31,2005.Capitalized terms used but not defined herein are used as defined in the Agreement.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day ofMarch, 2006.   /s/ Andree Ohmstedt /s/ Mark L. Davis   Andree Ohmstedt Mark L. DavisVice President and Controller Assistant Controller  Financial Reporting & Policy
 

 
**Independent Accountants’ Report**The Manager and Member
EXHIBIT 99.6

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 YM BioSciences Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
G.P. Allan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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.

      By:  /s/ David G.P. Allan
           -------------------------------------------
           David G.P. Allan
           Chief Executive Officer
           (Principal Executive Officer)

November 12, 2004
#### ROBINSON v. STATE.

No. 23361.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 22, 1946.

Marvin P. McCoy, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $500.

No statement of facts or bills of exceptions accompany the record.

Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00680- CR
Ronny Gene Sm ith, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 426 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 677 64- A, TH E H ONO RAB LE F ANCY H. F EZ EK, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant R onny Gene Smit h has filed a pro se notice of appea l of the trial court’s fi n d i n gs of fac t and conclusions of law enter ed in response to his application for writ of h ab ea s corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of t he Tex as C ode of Criminal Procedur e. See Tex
. C o d e C rim. Proc. ar t. 11.07 (proce dure f

or application for writ of ha beas c orpus). Article 11.0 7 v e s ts c o mp le te jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from final felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ar t
. 1 1
. 07, § 5; Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals f or Eighth Dist. , 910 S. W
. 2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re W atson , 253 S.W .3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2008, orig
. proce eding ). The intermediate courts of appea ls have no role in criminal law matters perta ining to proce eding s initiated unde r article 11.07. See In re Briscoe , 20 S.W .3d 196 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006, orig
. proce eding ); In re McAfe e , 53 S.W .3d 715, 718 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1stDist.] 2001, orig
. proce eding ); cf. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist. , 392 S.W .3d 115, 117–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

Acc ording ly , we dismiss this appeal for w ant of jurisdiction. 1

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Nove mber 6, 2013 Do Not Publish

We also note that the trial court cer tification in the rec ord ref lects that appellan t h as no 1 rig ht of appea l. We are require d to dismiss an appea l “if a cer tification that shows the defe ndant has a rig ht of appea l has not been made part of the rec ord.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State , 154 S.W .3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 2
**-----~--------------------------**

KAREN LONG, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SARLES, Defendant. 

### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FEB 11 2011 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts forthe District of Columbia 

# 11 0395

The Clerk ofCourt received 51 prose complaints from plaintiff, each accompaniedbyan application to proceed informapauperis, on December 29,2010. The Court consolidates these 52 filings for purposes ofthis Memorandum Opinion. The court must dismiss a complaint ifit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon whichreliefcan be granted. 28 U.S.c. 

### § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only claims based on an indisputablymeritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions
are clearlybaseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of cases whose factual contentions are clearlybaseless. !d. at 328. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational orwholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).The court is mindful that complaints filed byprose litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to forn1al pleadings drafted by lawyers. SeeHaines v. Kerner, 404 

# u.s. 519, 520 (1972). The Courthas reviewed plaintiffs complaints and finds eachto be incomprehensible. Some contain nothing more than disjointed phrases; others demand millions ofdollars in damages for claims that the Court cannot discern. Accordingly, the Court deems the complaint frivolous and will dismiss this action under 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(2)(B)(i). An Order consistentwith this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE:U.

# ~ ADjl United States District Judg

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000096988
<NAME> MARLTON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         732,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,353,039
<ALLOWANCES>                                   680,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,818,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,942,066
<PP&E>                                       7,959,186
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,216,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,454,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,755,223
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       30,872,869
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,134,782)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,454,923
<SALES>                                     25,790,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,790,981
<CGS>                                       20,230,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,230,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,003,537
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (224,734)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,395,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                   558,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            837,760
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   837,760
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
#### BUENO v. STATE.

No. 22473.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1943.

Oliver W. Johnson, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with misdemeanor theft, and upon a trial before the county judge, he was found guilty and assessed a fine of $10 and five days in jail.

There are no bills of exceptions found in the record. There are present sufficient facts upon which a judgment of conviction could be based.

No error being apparent, the judgment is affirmed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. 

### FAA- Directorate Identifier: 

### -AD

(lyou make du111ges t o the \ 'c

. du es in th e table he/on ·. you 1111/Stens ur e the totals updute ac.:c.:ordillgly. 

### (l the y do 110t, click (o r Tuh) i11to 

### wul th e n out of th e c han ged Ge l/. Estimated Costs: Action Cos t s per Product (e.g., aircraft , en g in e, (e.g., In s pection , propeller, appliance)

repl aceme nt) Work-hours Labor Part s Co s t Total Co s t s Number of Total Cos t Do n o t includ e on - (include cost ( labor + 

## u.s. for U.S

. Fleet condition cos t s h e r e access , te s tin g, ( @$ 85/ h part s) Registered a nd clo se -up) our) Products 

### Inspection and 24.5 $801 X 

### 25 modification II I( I ( ll Ill p \1( I (,lj 

# ' () II I) l' I It(, I fl I ( ()II II (I I II .If I' ()( (J .Oil I H 11()1 I () I II II( (' ll(l (, .( 1(1 (I 0\ G 00 ( (J 0 /1( 0 (){) I'(YI ,I II 0 Ill' II J ( l {I ()(J 1 

### r,; ' (,( (Ill() II (II' Ill! () 00 

# ,, ,, I I ll (l ()() II Iii, I (1' () O() II Oil I, {)I /) (l{ I (I till ( ()I 0 (1(1 (I HI (, /)( () If() ' HI II Cll 'I fill 'I 111 The known number of products in compl iance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compl ian ce for U.S. fleet: $72 , 088 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

# ~ Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cos t per Product (e.g ., In spec tion , ( includ e access, (@$85/hou r) testing, and clo s e- replacement) up) " (I ( 'I**~** li 01 II I)')**~** () t)() ,\ '"' 01 II ( J( I 

### " r or • : 1 1il 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this fie ld to exp lain anything in th e Es timate d Cos t s table that was assu m ed o r might not b e o bvious

. Thisfield can also be used t o expla in warranty cos t s): 

### 7

### Executive Ord e r 12866: Co ul d t h e A D b e c o n s id e r e d a "s ig nific a nt re g ul at ory acti o n "?

# ~ Y ES* 

# D NO 

### cgj *Ex pl a nati o n : 

### DOT R egulatory Policies and Procedures: Is th e A D s i g nifi ca nt ?

- Y ES* 

# D NO 

### cgj *Expl a na ti o n : 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will th e A D h ave a s i g nifi ca nt eco no mi c impa c t o n a s ub s tantial numb e r of s m a ll e ntitie s? Ex plain fo r e ith e r a Y es o r No a n swer . • YES 

# D NO 

### cgj Exp la n ati o n : 

### Intra s tate Aviation in Alaska: T hi s A D co uld a ffe c t intras tate av i a ti o n in Al as ka. Is it a ppro pri at e to include s pecifi c re quire m e n ts fo r a irc raft o p e ra ted in Al aska wh e r e av i ati o n mi g ht b e t he o nl y m o d e o f tra ns p o rta ti o n ? 

# . @1 YES* 

# D NO 

### cgj *Ex pl a na ti o n :



## 8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Tandycrafts,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,225
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,268
<INVENTORY>                                     58,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,247
<PP&E>                                          51,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,528
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,790
<SALES>                                        131,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,016
<CGS>                                           82,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,655
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,659
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,082
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,082
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>