alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32  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 Report of Strateco Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10K-SB for the period ending December 31, 2005, which contains the Companys financial statements audited for the year ended December 31, 2005 and audited for the year ended 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Guy Hébert, President 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:  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of 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/ Guy Hébert __________________ Guy Hébert President and Chief Executive Officer  February 22, 2006
----

----

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

|         | TELTRONICS, INC.                                   |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|         |                                               |
|         |                                               |
| May 17, 2010 | /s/ Ewen R. Cameron                                |
|         | Ewen R. Cameron                                    |
|         | Director, President and Chief Executive Officer    |
|         |                                               |
|         |                                               |
| May 17, 2010 | /s/ Angela L. Marvin                               |
|         | Angela L. Marvin                                   |
|         | Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer |

----
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4

James Boylan, Program Manager Planning and Support Program Air Protection Branch ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

## JAN 30 2015

Georgia Environmental Protection Division 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 Atlanta, Georgia 30354
DearMr. Boylan:
Thank you for the letter from Jimmy Johnston dated December 23, 2014, transmitting aprehearing package regarding Georgia's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing the 110(1) demonstration forthe Georgia Fuel Rules. We understand thatthis submittal is the subjectofa public hearing onJanuary 30, 2015, ifrequested, with written comments due by the close ofbusiness on January 30, 2015. We have completed our review ofthe prehearing submittal and have one comment at this time.
Effective January 1, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency began implementation ofthe CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) requiring states to significantly improve air quality by reducing powerplant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in otherstates. The EPA is currently evaluating CSAPRimplementation considerations and as such may need to provide subsequent guidance to EPD onthe contingency measures documented in Georgia's SIP revision in the future.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory Management Section, at (404) 562-9040, orhave your staffcontact Mr. Richard Wong at 404-562-8726. Sincerely,

# ~MW R. ScottDavis Chief AirPlanning Branch

cc: ElisabethMunsey, Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recyled/Recyclable • Printed w1th Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION; ZTE (USA), INC.; 

AND ZTE (TX), INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00489-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE 

BRIEF DEADLINES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) 

files this unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file a response to Motions to Dismiss3 filed 

by defendants ZTE Corporation; ZTE (USA), Inc.; and ZTE (TX), Inc. (“Defendants”), and would 

show as follows: 

1. On October 9, 2020, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, respectively, at Dkt. 

Nos. 24, 25, 26 (corrected by Dkt. 27). 

2. Pursuant to the Local Rules, WSOU’s deadline to file responses to the Motions is 

October 24, 2020. WSOU requests a three-week extension of its deadlines to November 6, 2020. 

3. This is the first extension WSOU has requested. The requested extension should 

cause no delay in the schedule.

4. WSOU has consulted with counsel for Defendants, and Defendants have indicated 

that they do not oppose this extension request. 

3 The motions were additionally styled with an alternative relief to transfer. For simplification, the 

motions will be styled herein as Motions to Dismiss. 

Case 6:20-cv-00489-ADA Document 28 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, WSOU respectfully requests that the deadline to file a respond to 

Defendant’s Motions, Dkt. Nos. 24, 25, 26 (corrected by Dkt. 27) be extended to November 6, 

2020. 

Dated: October 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

 James L. Etheridge

 Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeff Huang

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this October 13, 2020, with a copy of this document via email.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00489-ADA Document 28 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 12
 ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three Months Ended($ in thousands)
    
    March 312006
    
    2005Net income
    
    $
    21,910
    
    
    $
    72,670Income tax expense
    
    
    13,716
    
    
    
    12,347Earnings before income taxes(1)
    
    
    35,626
    
    
    
    85,017Fixed charges:Interest on debt, deposits and other borrowings
    
    
    13,666
    
    
    
    10,296Interest on subordinated debt payable
to preferred securities trust
    
    
    2,289
    
    
    
    2,289One-third of all rentals
    
    
    447
    
    
    
    386Total fixed charges
    
    
    16,402
    
    
    
    12,971Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges
    
    $
    52,028
    
    
    $
    97,988Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(2)
    
    
    3.17
    x
    
    
    7.55
    x
 (1)
    
    Earnings before income taxes in the three months ended March 31, 2005 includes a $67.7
million gain on transfer of consumer credit card business relating to our May 28, 2004
agreement with Bank of America Corp.(2)
    
    For purposes of computing these ratios, earnings represent income before income
taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and one-third
(the portion deemed representative of the interest factor) of rental expense on
operating leases.
February	25,	2015

To	Whom	It	May	Concern, I	Chase	Daniel	Saldana	am	requesting	and/or petitioning	to	participate	in commercial	use	of my	unmanned	aircraft	or	drone.	I intend	to	used	my	unmanned aircraft	or	drone	to	engag e	in	photography	and	film production .	I	am	aware	of	all FAA	safety	guidelines	listed	below:

- Fly	below	400	feet	and	remain	clear	of	surrounding	obstacles

- Keep	the	aircraft	within	visual	line	of	sight	at	all	times

- Remain	well	clear	of	and	do	not	interfere	with	manned	aircraft operations

- Don't	fly	within	5	miles	of	an	airport	unless	you	contact	the	airport	and	control tower	before	flying

- Don't	fly	near	people	or	stadiums

- Don't	fly	an	aircraft	that	weighs	more	than	55	lbs

- Don't	be	careless	or	reckless	with	your	unmanned	a ircraft – you	could	be	fined	for endangering	people	or	other	aircraft I	will to	comply	with	all	FAA	safety	guidelines regarding	recreational	use	of unmanned	aircrafts	and/or	drones	at	all	times	when	operating	my	craft.	I	intend	to perform	commercial	operations	in	low - risk,	controlled	environments.	I	in tend	to market	and	sell	aeria l	photography	and	film	for	profit.	I	am	requesting	this exception	is	accordance	with	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act of	2012	(FMRA),	for	Civil	Operations	(Non - Governmental).	No	specific	exemptions are	needed	at	this	time.	Howeve r,	I	am	requesting	authorization	to	operate my unmanned	aircraft	to	perform controlled commercial	operations. Model:	DJI	Phantom	Vision	2 Model	No:	PV330 Serial: PH636058155 Drone	Weight:	6lbs Width:	19”	x	14”	inches Height:	10”	inches Thank	you	for	your	consideration. Chase	Saldana 3064	White	Rock	Rd. Camarillo	Ca	93012 Phone: 805 - 551 - 6027 chase.saldana@gmail.com
#### TEXAS EMPLOYERS’ INSURANCE ASS’N, Appellant, v. Tyra Ellison HOLMES, Appellee.

No. 13688.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

Oct. 18, 1946.

Burford, Ryburn, Hincks & Ford and Clarence Guittard all of Dallas, for appellant.

White & Yarborough of Dallas, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause, involving a construction of sec. 12, Art. 8306, R.C.S., was submitted under an agreed statement of facts, set forth in Certificate to the Supreme Court of date January 18, 1946. It follows from the opinion and affirmative answer of that court to the question certified (196 S.W.2d 390), that the trial court applied the correct rule in fixing amount of compensation due appellee.

In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue submitted by way of certified question, judgment of the trial court is in all respects affirmed.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3044 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties 

in Iuka, Mississippi. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3044 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROP2 ERTIES. 

3 In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Val4 ley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress 

5 approves the conveyance by the Tennessee Valley Author6 ity, on behalf of the United States, to the State of Mis7 sissippi of the Yellow Creek Port properties owned by the 

8 United States and in the custody of the Authority at Iuka, 

9 Mississippi, as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The Central Trust Co., Trustee, Appellee, *v.*Campbell et al., Board of Commissioners of Hamilton County, Appellants.

(No. 28086

Decided March 27, 1940.)

*Messrs. Paxton & Seasongood, Mr. Lester A. Jaffe*and *Mr. Evans L. DeCamp,*for appellee.

*Mr. Carl W. Rich,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Walter M. Locke*and *Mr. I. Jack Martin,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt,- C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers,, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US

To: Mike Kaplan <Mike.Kaplan@usa.dupont.com>

Date: 10/20/2011 04:10 PM

Subject: Re: Data Adequacy Review for CASRN 89-32-7

Mike, I do have the final report from the contractor. They have used the proprietary protocol to review the

data that was submitted and have determined that much of it was acceptable for the purpose of meeting

the endpoints required by the test rule. The data adequacy review was labeled as CBI and I have

encountered a few administrative snags regarding this classification that I am trying to work out. I may

have to wait until next week to get that cleared up so I can mail you the document. However, I have

extracted some information that should be of most interest to you regarding the endpoints required by the

test rule on CASRN 89-32-7 .

Aquatic Effects:

Aquatic toxicity to Fish no additional testing required

Acute toxicity to Daphnia no additional testing required

Toxicity to Aquatic plants no additional testing required

Health Effects:

Acute Toxicity

Bacterial Reverse Mutation no additional testing required

Repeated-Dose Toxicity no additional testing required

**Reproductive Toxicity As noted by the sponsor "reproductive toxicity cannot be robustly addressed

through read-across (to analog chemicals)" Therefore the reproductive toxicity endpooint remains as a

data gap

Developmental Toxicity no additional testing required

I will get back with you next week after I have resolved the CBI issues. 

Regards. Paul Campanella

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C.

202-564-8091

From: Mike Kaplan <Mike.Kaplan@usa.dupont.com>

To: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 10/20/2011 09:20 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Follow-up to Introduction Letter-PMDA and Contact Information

Dear Paul,

I work from home and unfortunately do not have a fax set-up yet. If you

cannot send by email, would you mail the contractor's report to me at the

following address:

A. Michael Kaplan

23 Wilkinson Drive

Landenberg, PA 19350

In addition, I assume that the appropriate folks at EPA are currently

reviewing the contractor's report to determine if they are in agreement.

Will that review by EPA still be completed by the end of this week as you

indicated in your previous email ? Also, will you contact me once EPA

finishes its review and let me know the final Agency's decision(s) ?

Sincerely,

Mike
exv10w28



 






Exhibit 10.28




2006 Non-Employee Director Compensation Program




     The following is a summary of the compensation arrangements for Orbital’s non-employee
directors effective January 1, 2006:



Annual Retainers and Meeting Fees*:





	 	–	 	Annual retainer of $30,000
	 
	 	–	 	Annual retainer of $5,000 for the chairperson of each standing committee for up
to one standing committee per year
	 
	 	–	 	Annual retainer of $1,000 for each non-chair member of each standing committee
for up to two standing committees per year
	 
	 	–	 	Annual retainer of $10,000 for the lead independent director
	 
	 	–	 	$1,000 for each Board meeting attended in person in excess of five meetings per
year
	 
	 	–	 	A pro-rated amount up to $1,000 for each Board meeting held telephonically
based on the length of such meeting
	 
	 	–	 	$1,000 for each committee meeting attended in person
	 
	 	–	 	$500 for each committee meeting held telephonically




*The annual retainers and meeting fees are payable in cash or shares of restricted common stock at
the non-employee director’s election. The restricted common stock grants are issued under our 1997
Stock Option and Incentive Plan and have a two-year vesting term.




Stock Purchase Matching Program:





	 	–	 	Orbital matches a non-employee director’s purchase of up to $10,000 worth of common
stock in the open market in a calendar year with a grant of restricted common stock
that vests in its entirety two years from the date of grant.





Annual Stock Option Grant:





	 	–	 	Under Orbital’s 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, on the first business day
in January, each non-employee director receives an automatic annual grant of 5,000
options to purchase common stock at an exercise price equal to the fair market value on
the date of grant. All of the option grants vest in their entirety one year from the
date of grant.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 24 - 50041 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Cecilio Torres -**  **Ibarra,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:23 - CR - 1189 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Jones, Southwick,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Cecilio Torres - Ibarra appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory m aximum established by § 1326(a) based on

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 26, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-50041 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2024No. 24 - 50041

2 facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a letter brief correctly conceding that the only issue he raises is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir. 2019). He explains that he has raised the issue to preserve it for possible further review. Because summary disp osition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), Torres - Ibarra’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED** . Case: 24-50041 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2024
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 10, 2024

No. 04-24-00031-CV

IN RE Rene L. MADRIGAL, Relator

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

In this original proceeding, relator Rene L. Madrigal asserts that the trial court abused its 

discretion by granting real party in interest Alberto Tijerina’s motion for a new trial. We agree and 

conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by substituting its judgment for that of the jury 

and granting a new trial. We therefore conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and 

direct the trial court to vacate its order granting a new trial. The writ of mandamus will issue only 

if the trial court fails to comply within ten days of the date of this opinion and order.

It is so ORDERED on July 10, 2024.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of July, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CVA001882D1, styled Alberto Tijerina v. Rene L. Madrigal, pending 

in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Jose A. Lopez presiding.
Exhibit
10.11


 


Misonix,
Inc.


Description
of Executive Annual Bonus Incentive Plan


 


On
July 26, 2021, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Misonix, Inc. (the “Company”),
approved the terms and conditions of the Company’s fiscal year 2022 annual cash incentive plan (the “2022 Plan”) for
certain officers of the Company, including certain of the Company’s named executive officers. The terms of the 2022 Plan are similar
to those of the Company’s fiscal year 2021 annual cash incentive plan. The 2022 Plan was designed to align the interests of plan
participants with the Company’s business goals and strategies, and to further the objectives of the Company’s executive compensation
program.


 


Awards
to the Company’s participating executive officers (collectively, “Participating Executives”), under the 2022 Plan will
be based on the Company achieving targets for Fiscal 2022 revenue and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
(“EBITDA”) levels as well as individual performance goals. The target cash incentive award opportunity available to Participating
Executives under the 2022 Plan is calculated as a percentage of Participating Executive’s base salary, all in accordance with the
terms of each such officer’s existing employment agreement. The full target cash incentive award opportunity at the 100% achievement
level will be awarded upon the occurrence of a change of control of the Company. In addition, any payouts under the 2022 Plan to Participating
Executives will be required to be returned to the Company upon any violation of non-competition covenants in their respective existing
employment agreements.


 


Actual
revenue and EBITDA annual performance will be compared to the threshold, target and maximum performance goals. Performance is measured
at the end of the fiscal year 2022. Actual revenue and EBITDA annual performance will be compared to the threshold, target and maximum
performance goals. If the Company achieves the full-year 2022 threshold goal, Participating Executives will be entitled under the 2022
Plan to a total payout equal to 50% of his or her respective target award opportunity for each of the EBITDA and revenue goals, respectively.
If the Company exceeds the full-year goal, Participating Executives will be entitled to a total payout equal to up to 150% of his or
her respective target award opportunity for each of the EBITDA and revenue goals, respectively. Actual performance between threshold
and target and target and maximum will result in payout amounts determined by linear interpolation.