alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w2c








Exhibit 10.2c




2008 Award




Dear [Full Name]:




Effective August 1, 2008 you have been awarded [amount] shares of Common Stock that is subject to
restrictions and forfeiture provisions for your director service. Here are the legal details of
that award.





	•	 	Your award (the “Award”) consists of shares of Restricted
Stock, par value $.25 per share, of Centex Corporation (the
“Company”). It is being made under the Centex Corporation
2003 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).
	 
	•	 	The restrictions in the Plan and this Award terminate on
August 1, 2011, unless they end at an earlier time as
described in the Plan or this Award. The date that the
restrictions terminate is called the “Lapse Date.” The
 shares of Restricted Stock will be freely transferable on
the day after the Lapse Date. You will forfeit your shares
if, before the Lapse Date, (i) you cease to be a director
for any reason or (ii) you engage in, or have an interest
(as stockholder, director, officer, employee, agent,
partner or otherwise) in, any entity that engages in any
business activity in the United States that the Company or
any of its Affiliates is engaged at any time from the date
of this Award to the date you cease to be a director. The
restriction in clause (ii) of this paragraph does not apply
if you own 1% or less of any class of equity securities of
a publicly traded entity, or if your participation or
interest in a business activity results in annual revenues
to you or that entity of $500,000 or less.
	 
	•	 	The restrictions in the Plan and this Award terminate
immediately (i) upon your Retirement (as defined below),
(ii) if there is a Change in Control of the Company, or
(iii) if you die or incur a Disability. “Retirement” means
your Retirement (as defined in the Plan) (A) at the end of
your current term as director if you cannot stand for
re-election because you have reached the age of 70, or (B)
from the Board with the consent of a majority of the other
directors. Whether you have suffered a Disability will be
determined by the Committee. In the event of your death,
your shares will be transferred pursuant to your will or
the laws of descent and distribution and the recipients
will have all rights to the shares of Restricted Stock.
	 
	•	 	This Award is subject to the Plan, and the Plan will
govern if there is any inconsistency between the Plan and
this Award. If you need a copy of the Plan, the Law
Department can provide one. The provisions of the Plan are
also provisions of this Award, and all terms, provisions
and, except as otherwise defined in this Award, the
definitions set forth in the Plan are incorporated in this
Award and made a part of this Award for all purposes.
Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Award will
have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Plan.
	 
	•	 	This Award has been signed by the Company and delivered to
you, and (when you sign below) has been accepted by you
effective as of August 1, 2008.





	 	 	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE

	 	CENTEX CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	


 

[Full Name]

	 	/s/ Timothy R. Eller
 

Timothy R. Eller
	 	 
	 

	 	Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Opinion issued August 31, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00667-CR

———————————

RONNIE PRICE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1528933

MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

Appellant attempts to appeal from an order deferring adjudication of guilt 

signed on February 21, 2017.1 Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 11, 2018.

This notice of appeal is untimely.2

In criminal cases, the appellant must file a notice of appeal “within 30 days 

after the day sentence is imposed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Because the order 

appealed was signed on February 21, 2017, the deadline for filing the notice of 

appeal was March 23, 2017. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 11, 2018, 

more than a year too late. Thus, his notice of appeal was not timely filed. Without a 

timely-filed notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1

` Although the State moved to adjudicate guilt in July 2017, the record, including the 

docket sheet with filings through July 18, 2018, shows no order granting this 

motion.

2 Additionally, the order of deferred adjudication was the result of a plea bargain 

between appellant and the State. The trial court’s certification of defendant’s right 

to appeal indicates that appellant has no right to appeal because this is a plea-bargain 

case.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
**18 U.S.C. §1350,**
**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of HEI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended May 29, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mack V. Traynor,Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.              /s/ Mack V. Traynor, III     Date: July 13, 2004 Mack V. Traynor, III*Chief Executive Officer and President*   
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to HEI, Inc. and will be retained by HEI, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EX-10.1




Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO 2007 AGREEMENT




     This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the 2007 Agreement by and between A. Schulman, Inc.
(the “Corporation”) and a group of investors led by Barington Capital Group, L.P. (collectively,
the “Barington Group”) dated as of November 15, 2007 (the “2007 Agreement”), is hereby made as of
this 10th day of October, 2008 by the Corporation and the Barington Group.



     WHEREAS, on November 15, 2007, the Corporation entered into the 2007 Agreement with the
Barington Group in order to avoid a proxy contest at the 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders;



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of the 2007 Agreement, the Corporation and the Barington Group
agreed to the formation of a special committee of the Board of Directors (the “Special
Committee”), consisting of John B. Yasinsky, Willard R. Holland, Michael A. McManus, Jr., Howard R.
Curd, James A. Mitarotonda and the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, with Mr. Curd serving as
chairman, to explore all strategic alternatives to maximize and improve stockholder value,
including, without limitation, a strategic acquisition, merger or sale of the Corporation;



     WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Barington Group now desire to amend Section 7 of the 2007
Agreement to permit Director Lee D. Meyer to serve as a member of the Special Committee of the
Corporation’s Board of Directors; and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13 of the 2007 Agreement, James A. Mitarotonda has been
irrevocably appointed as attorney-in-fact and representative for all members of the Barington
Group, and has full power and authority to execute this Amendment.



     NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


1. Membership of Special Committee. Paragraph 7(a) of the 2007 Agreement shall be amended
to read (in its entirety) as follows:




     (a) Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, the Board will form a special committee
(the “Special Committee”) consisting of John B. Yasinsky, Willard R. Holland, Michael A. McManus,
Jr., Howard R. Curd, Lee D. Meyer and Mitarotonda, and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer
serving as a nonvoting member (with Mr. Curd serving as Chairman) to explore all strategic
alternatives to maximize and improve shareholder value, including, without limitation, a strategic
acquisition, merger or sale of the Company.


2. No Further Amendment. Except as otherwise amended hereby, all terms of the 2007
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




[SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]




 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered by the duly authorized
signatories of the parties as of the date hereof.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	A. SCHULMAN, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Joseph M. Gingo
 	 
	 	Name: 	  	Joseph M. Gingo 	 
	 	Title: 	  	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	BARINGTON REPRESENTATIVE

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ James A. Mitarotonda
 	 
	 	Name: 	  	James A. Mitarotonda 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




-2-
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  
                                                               EXHIBIT 23.5     
               
            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS     
   
As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of
our report dated June 2, 1998, (and to all references to our firm) included in
or made a part of this Amendment No. 2 to the registration statement filed on
Form S-4 (File No. 333-66947).     
                                             
                                          /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP     
   
March 19, 1999,     
    
 Orlando, Florida
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,670
<SECURITIES>                                    21,348
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,752
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,706
<PP&E>                                           6,563
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,380
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,728
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,058)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,570
<INCOME-TAX>                                       427
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,143
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,143
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
MOTION DOCKET

98-2449.

#### State v. Issa.

Hamilton C.P. No. B9709438. On motion for admission *pro hac vice*of Thomas H. Speedy Rice by Martin S. Piñales. Motion granted.
Mr .. :Boris c.w. !faaelin 

Crypto A.G. 

Weinbergatrasse 10 

Zug, SVitzerland 

Dear ::Boris 1 

310 Second Street, 8.E. 

Washington 3, D. c. 

3 December l951fThank you very much tor your letter of 20 lfovember, which wao a bit delayed 

in reeahing me bece.use o~ a t)"ping error 1ou ma.de in the. address on the envelope. 

You wrote "210'' instead~ "310,'' and our postmen around here are not too 'bright. 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

When I was with Do and Edith last September, there w.s a plan tor Edith 

to take the children this winter or early spring ot l955 to the U.S. tor a viait 

with their grand:pa.rents on thia side of the Atlantic. Ia the plan. ma.ter:talisingt 

I:t so, is there a possibility tba.t lSo would. come along with the.mt Ne,tural.ly, I 

vouldn 1 t want to m:l•s him by beiDg in Europe lll,Y'Self' at the ea.me time tbe.t he i• 

over bere, as I a•sume that be vouJ..d. come to Washington, too, 11' only tovi•it with 

Art and Ingrid. 

eclassifi ed and a roved for release b NSA on 01-15-2015 ursuantto E .0. 1352 
. "'!': ,_ -. --· - ..... .. 

REF ID:A64254 

GECRE] 

Both Elizabeth and I have been 'VOrking q'U.i:te long hour•, try:f.ns to 

tiniah up the book--the finishing touches are :ma.ny, aometiloes annc))'l.ng or 

bothersome, but have to be done. 

- ~' ... ~ ~ - . -- ... 

Aa I told you in nw- lut letter, the Br1tanu1cr& article Wei tound acceptable, 

c1eap1te rq going much beyond the limits ot length set b7 them (6,ooo vorda). I 

went beyond 8, 500, and certain.l1' expected a strenuous ob~ect1on trom. them. Imagine 

my astonishment and plea1ure vhen, inatead ot a •te:rn request to cut it to the 

length stipulated, they llOt o~ accepted the article but alllo toll.owed up the 

acceptance by one at tbe ahorteat but nicest letter• I ever received. That vill 

explain why l am so imm.odeat as to show below e. copy o't the Britannica latter tor 

your intorme.tion and Po•si'ble pleasure in anticipation at receipt ot the cow 

of the article. I am goi»a to aak them tor a. ftJtt actual reprintll or "ottaete11 

aa they are called over bere, and ;you •ball have om / ot course. Alao, and ot 

courH, an autographed copy ot our book .. -when, u, and it" publilhedl 

I hopa rou all had a nice visit to l'&rie and Madrid. And, ot cour1e, 

111u.beth and I both hope th&t you all will ba.vo a very JfelT)" Cb.ristm.s and & 

lfa.PW Bev Year! Love to Annie Q4 attectio:na.te greetln.w;s to you :rrom. both of 

ue. 

lovember 

23 

1954 

Kr. William F. 1riedm.n 

310 Second Street, s.x .. Washington 3, l>, C .. 

Dear Jlr. Frie&ne.ns 

We 'have &l'WB.7• f'elt that the article CODES Am> CIPBERS 111&8 a 11showpiece" 

or tbe ~c1oJil!Zdia Britannica, and af't&r reading your new reviaion 

we toel • i• so more than over. 

Sincerely youra, 

GECRElJ
99-1038.

#### State v. Jackson.

Hamilton App. No. C-980559. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.
#### The State ex rel. City of Augusta and others, Appellants, vs. Losby, Clerk, and others, Respondents.

*April 2*

September *23, 1902.*

*State ex rel. Augusta ¶. Losby, ante,*p. 57, followed.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Eau Olaire •county: James O’ÜSTeill, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Gertiorari*to review the proceedings of a commission appointed under sec. 1077a., Stats. 1898, to revise the county assessment of Eau Claire county for the year 1900.

Eor the appellants there was a brief by *W. II.*Frawley, attorney, and *H. H. Hayden*and *H. B.*Walmsley, of counsel, .and oral argument by *Mr. Hayden*and *Mr. Walmsley.*

*James*WicTcham, for the respondents.

The following opinion was filed April 22, 1902:

Maeshall, J.

The questions in this case are the same as in *State ex rel. Augusta v.*Losby, ante, p. 57. The only substantial difference between the two cases on the facts is that the proceedings in the decided case relate to the assessment of 1899, while those in this case relate to the assessment of 1900. Following the decision in the first case, the order appealed from here must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.

A motion for a rehearing was denied September 23, 1902.
USCIB: 9.3/S • APPBNBm> • B00Hffi!fi! 60.fff Al'NB 

C®iVJQIW HJ.'t'ER!Al:i 

18 October 1954 

'f OP ffi!l6RE'f 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIBEC: 

Subject: Report by the Director, NSA, on the Extent to Which U.S. 

COMINT Resources Can Be Applied Erf ectively to Fulfill 

the Requirements of the USCIB Master Requirements List. 

Reference: USCIB 9.3/7 of 27 July 1954. 

1. The enclosed report of the Chainnan, USCIB Intelligence 

Committee is circulated for consideration. 

2. It is requ~sted that the attached vote sheet be executed and 

returned to this office by the close of business, Tuesday, 26 October 

1954. 

Enclosure 

INTCOM 9-3/17 dtd 15 Oct 1954 • 

USCIB: 9.3/S 

• 

APPl!iNBBB B000Ml!iN'f 00N'fAINS 

00BEiUORB !fA'i'BRIMi 

\• 

\ 

' 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-04-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

TOP SECRET 

~4 
. WCOM: 9.3/17 • g~1H9'fH • 

15 October 1954 

T9P SiSHEF.e PRS!II 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE SECRET~Y~~CIB 

Subject: 

Reference: 

Report by the Director, NSA, on the Extent to Which u.s. 

COMINT Resources Can Be Applied Effectively to Fulfill the 

Requirements of the USCIB Master Requirements List 

USCIB 9.3/7 dated 27 July 1954 

Pursuant to USCIBEC decision or 21 September 1954, the USCIB 

Intelligence Committee reviewed subject report by the Director, ?SA. 

The Committee, with t..lie NSA Member not voting, concluded that the report, 

wb,ile containing data on the current status of exploitation, does not 

provide the type 0£ information that is required £or an adequate understanding of the present and potential capabilities of u.s. resources 

to satisfy U.S. COMINT requirements. The Committee believes that, in 

order to review the extent to which U.S. resources can be applied 

effectively to :fulf'ill the Master Requirements List, USCIB requires 

answers to the following questions: 

a. Are the resources now em.ployed, or programmed .for employment, sufficient to develop and apply fUlly the U.S. technical potential 

against those foreign communications that a.re required to fu1£ill U.S. 

COMINT requirements? 

b. If the answer, to question,! is no: 

{l) 'What additional resources are needed to accomplish the 

full development referred to in question~ above? 

{2) To what extent could the shortage of resources in a:ny 

particular problem be overcome by the transfer of resources 

from other problems, and if so, what would be the effect 

on the problem or problems red~ced by such a transfer~ 

{3) To what extent could the required resources listed in 

the answer to questionR{l) above be obtained by increasing 

the total resources available to the National Security Agency? 

c. It ia recommended that the answers to questions.!! andJ:? a't:ove 

be broken down according to the following types of communications: 

(1) Russian communications. 

{2) Chinese Co:nmn.lllist communications. 

{3) Other Orbit communications. 

(4) Non-Orbit communications. 

Enclosure with USCIB 9.3/8 dtd 18 Oct 54. 

(SIGNED) H. C. Sll;n°'.{)NS 

Lt. C'A>lonal, USAF 

Chairman, INTOOM 

TOP SECRET FRO'fH
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 18, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132618 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

REBECCA JANE LIPTOW, as Personal Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the ESTATE OF JELINDA Justices JOANNE BURNETTE-LIPTOW, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and SC: 132618 

 COA: 260562 
 Wayne CC: 03-301611-CK

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF 

COMMUNITY HEALTH, 

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 24, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows: 

This Court should grant leave to appeal to consider whether MCL 600.5821(4) 

exempts a state governmental body from the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1). 

This is a jurisprudentially significant issue of first impression. 

p0515 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 18, 2007 

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF 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 Annual Report of Epoch Holding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), William W. Priest, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Adam Borak, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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)
          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 as of, and for, the periods presented
          in the Report.


Dated:  November 14, 2005      By:  /s/ William W. Priest
                                    _____________________________
                                     William W. Priest
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated:  November 14, 2005      By:  /s/ Adam Borak
                                    ________________________
                                     Adam Borak
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172
Doc ID: 6566172