alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.12

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

The Company uses a combination of cash and stock-based incentive compensation to attract and retain qualified candidates to serve on the Board. In setting
director compensation, the Company considers the significant amount of time that Directors expend in fulfilling their duties to the Company, as well as the skills required by the Company of members of
the Board.

Annual Retainer

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, each Non-employee member of the Board received an annual retainer of $20,000 payable in cash and
$50,000 payable in cash or Common Stock of the Company (subject to rounding up or down such that the number of shares issued to each Director is a whole number, but not to exceed $50,000 in value),
pursuant to the Edge Petroleum Corporation Incentive Plan, as amended and restated (the "Incentive Plan"). Furthermore, all Directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in attending meetings of the Board or Board committees and for other expenses incurred in their capacity as Directors. No stock options were granted to Directors in 2007.

In
addition, the chairmen of the Board's standing committees (Audit, Compensation and Corporate Governance/Nominating) each spend a significant amount of extra time beyond what is
required for Board committee membership in performing their duties. In acknowledgment of this fact, the chairmen of each standing committee receive the following additional annual retainers, payable
in cash:

Audit Committee Chairman

$
10,000Compensation Committee Chairman

$
5,000Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee Chairman

$
5,000


The
annual cash retainers are payable to each Board member and committee chairman, as applicable, as of the date of the annual meeting of stockholders for the following year. For
example, Directors elected at and continuing to serve at the date of the annual meeting of stockholders in 2008 will receive payment of their respective annual cash retainers on the date of the next
annual meeting of stockholders in 2009. If the Company elects to pay a portion of the annual retainer in common stock of the Company, as described above, the grant date for the stock award will be the
first business day of the month following the annual meeting, e.g., directors who were elected at and continued to serve at the May 23, 2007 annual meeting received any applicable
portion of their annual retainer that was to be paid in common stock of the Company on June 1, 2007.

Board and Board Committee Meeting Fees

Each Non-employee Director receives $1,500 cash for in-person attendance at a meeting of the Board of Directors ($500 if such attendance
is telephonic) and $1,500 cash for each meeting of a standing Committee of the Board of Directors attended ($500 if telephonic). Board and Board committee meeting fees are paid in cash to the
directors at the time of the respective meetings.

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                     988,635,000
<SECURITIES>                             1,363,200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,971,024,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                19,800,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     182,463,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              70,059,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           4,866,792,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    510,316,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,416,000
<OTHER-SE>                               1,332,140,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             4,866,792,000
<SALES>                                    546,828,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,091,460,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              444,455,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         160,882,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            486,123,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               184,727,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        301,396,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               301,396,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.15
        

</TABLE>
Termination Notice Letter to Morgan Stanley



 Exhibit 10.22 
 YRC WORLDWIDE INC. 
 10990 Roe Avenue 

Overland Park, Kansas 66211 

July 7, 2011 
 Morgan Stanley Senior
Funding, Inc. 
 1585 Broadway, Floor 04 

New York, New York, 10036 
 Re: Termination
of Commitment Letter and Fee Letter 
 Ladies and Gentleman: 
 Reference is made (i) to that certain letter effective as of May 16, 2011 (the “Commitment Letter”) by and among Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. (“Morgan
Stanley”) and YRC Worldwide Inc. (“YRCW”), regarding an agreement to use best efforts to arrange an up to $400 million Senior Secured Financing and a $50.0 million commitment of Morgan Stanley in respect thereof and
(ii) to that certain fee letter effective as of May 16, 2011 (the “Fee Letter”) by and among Morgan Stanley and YRCW, regarding certain fees payable in connection with such engagement. 

In accordance with the terms of the Commitment Letter and the Fee Letter, YRCW hereby notifies you that it terminates the Commitment Letter and the Fee
Letter; provided that the terms of the Commitment Letter relating to (i) costs and expenses and fees, (ii) indemnification, (iii) confidentiality and (iv) governing law shall survive termination of the Commitment Letter. Morgan
Stanley acknowledges that the conditions Morgan Stanley must have satisfied to be entitled to receive payment of the Morgan Stanley Alternative Transaction Fee under Paragraph 2 of the Fee Letter have not been, and cannot be, satisfied and
that, notwithstanding the terms of the Commitment Letter and the Fee Letter, Paragraph 2 of the Fee Letter shall not survive termination of the Commitment Letter nor the Fee Letter. 
 For the avoidance of doubt, termination of the Commitment Letter and the Fee Letter does not terminate Morgan Stanley’s obligations under that certain Confidentiality Agreement dated as of
February 1, 2011 by and between Morgan Stanley and YRCW. 
 [This space intentionally left blank] 







 
			
	YRC WORLDWIDE INC.
		
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	
	Title:
	 	


  

			
	Acknowledged and agreed:
	
	MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
		
	By:	 	 
	Name: Ron Kubick
	Title: Managing Director


  
 2
1 NAM'E flR TITLE 

INITIALS 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION DATE 

3 

4 

CIRCULATE 

CONCUR· 

REN CE 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY 

ACTION 

NOTE AND RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

pproved for Release by NSA on 12-19-2013 pursuant to E.O. 

3526 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 

WD AGO FORM SeS 1 .JUN 1848 

' I TELEPHONE 

IG--fi848'7-1 U. 8. GOYERNllENT PRINTING OPFICS / --.. 
I(" ' .. 

• 

2.3 March l ~4-1 

DREW PEARSON (ABC) 

REF ID:A6904' 

PREfilCTIOM NO. 5, The Yalta AgrP.ement: 

The State Departriient will soon make public the wartime secret 

aereements and here is my prediction regarding one importl::l.Ilt secret 

affecting the peace of the world. The Yalta agreement, I predict, 

will show that Franklin Roosevelt urged Stalin to enter the Japanese 

' 

War just. as soon as Ge:rma.ny surrendered. In o.r<ier to get such a 

promise from Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill finally gave Russia 

the follovfine territo:cy: The Kurile Islands, all of Outer Uoneolia, 

and two vital seaports in Manchuria, Dairen, and Port Arthur. 

Despite this guarantee tha.t Russia would enter the Japl.t!lese War, 

I predict that history will show that Stalin came to the Potsdam 

Conference with a Jap?llese peace proposal in his pocket but he did 

not disclose this joyful news to Churchill and Truman. Act11ally, they 

knew he had a Japanese offer because we had been decoding Japan's secret 

cabl.es and so Truman and Churchill t•aited several days for Stalin to 

rortke kno~n the Japanese proposal. However, when Stalin said nothing 

Truman and Churchill regretfully concluded that Russia did not want 

the Japanese war to end and I predict that history vdll show this 

'YI-as why Truman and Churchill finally decided to drop the atom bomb. 

23 l:ar/7 p.m.
December 5, 2013

The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency William Jefferson Clinton Building Mail Code 1101A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator McCarthy: As representatives of our nation’s diverse faith communities, we write to express our gratitude to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for proposing strong “Tier 3” clean vehicle and fuel standards, which will reduce smog

- forming pollution, make our air healthier to breathe, and save lives. We also write to strongly

urge you to finalize these critical standards expeditiously. **The longer the standards are delayed, the longer the health of God’s creation**  **, as well as the health of our most vulnerable**  **cit izens** 

**– those in low** 

**- income communities, our elderly, and our children** 

**– must wait and suffer**  **the life**

**- threatening consequences of air that is dangerous to breathe.**  As people of faith, we are taught through our sacred texts to love our neighbors and to ser ve the least among us
. Our shared values as a society demand that our air be safe to breathe for everyone. The EPA has been charged with ensuring that **all** people are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, lear n, and work. In order to fulfill that mission, these standards must be finalized as soon as possible. It is also important to act quickly because of the increasing number of high heat days due to climate change. As temperatures rise, limiting ozone

- forming pollution becomes even more urgent. President Obama has highlighted the impacts that climate change is already having on communities across the nation. We must seek out every available option for limiting pollution that exacerbates the impact of climate change. The health benefits associated with the Tier 3 proposal are clear. By reducing the sulfur content of gasoline and tailpipe pollution, the proposed standards would prevent up to 2,400 premature deaths, 3,200 hospital visits, and 22,000 asthma attack s annually by 2030. Further, the standards would prevent 1.8 million lost school and workdays.
T hese benefits will only be achieved once the standard is finalized and implemented. As representatives of diverse faith communities across the U.S. concerned wi th the health of our citizens and our environment, we urge you to finalize Tier 3 standards as soon as possible and prevent any further delays of these critical safeguards. Faithfully , Carmelite NGO Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach Creation Justice Ministries Evangelical Environmental Network Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Friends Committee on National LegislationGreenFaith

Interfaith Power & Light Jewish Council for Public Affairs Mary knoll Office For Global Concerns Presby terian Church (U.S.A) Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, Institute Justice Team
| 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /s/ John L. Workman                                                 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | John L. WorkmanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND THE CONDENSED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND 1994, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         487,403
<SECURITIES>                                 6,353,174
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    578,631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,753,047
<PP&E>                                      15,270,133
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,624,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,604,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,060,476
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        18,886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,524,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,604,209
<SALES>                                        817,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,002,221
<CGS>                                          730,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  730,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,637,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,129,092)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,129,092)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,129,092)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2016

No. 04-16-00388-CR

Raul Aguero AYALA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B14466

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal and 

requests that he be permitted to withdraw as appellant’s counsel. Counsel certifies he has served 

a copy of the brief on appellant and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a 

pro se brief. Counsel also certifies that he has forwarded copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s 

records to appellant. 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within forty-five days from the 

date of this order. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, 

no pet.).

If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than 

thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. Alternatively, if appellant does not 

file a timely pro se brief, the State may file a brief in response to counsel’s brief no later than 

thirty days after the pro se brief is due.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel to be HELD IN 

ABEYANCE pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988); 

Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1841

ALBERT WILLIAM LACY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOE DELONG, Director, West Virginia Regional Jail Authority; 

STEVE CROOKS, Administrator, South Central Regional Jail; MR. 

WILSON, Medical Administrator, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; MR. 

HUNTER, Correctional Officer, South Central Regional Jail; 

UNKNOWN MEDICAL STAFF, Placed me in an unclean cell in the 

hospital removing the person that had staff infection; MEDICAL 

STAFF PERSON TERRY, Female, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; MEDICAL 

STAFF PERSON EVA, Female, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; UNKNOWN 

CORPORAL AND MEDICAL STAFF, Prime Care Medical, Inc.; UNKNOWN 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, Female; SEVERAL UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-14813)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert William Lacy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert William Lacy seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing some, but not all, of his claims raised under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory 

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order Lacy seeks to appeal is neither a final order 

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1755

JOSEPH B. LAMBERT,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MECKLENBURG COUNTY; DENA DIORIO; CHRIS PEEK,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:15-cv-00577-GCM)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph B. Lambert, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Rainey, WOMBLE 

CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph B. Lambert appeals the district court’s order 

granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying Lambert’s 

motion to amend his complaint as futile. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Lambert v. 

Mecklenburg Cty., No. 3:15-cv-00577-GCM (W.D.N.C. June 2, 2016). 

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
.... 

- ,I . I 

-··· ____ ..... - . ' 

REF ID:AlOSO~ 

• 

~°'1 ~-e··-W- . . , 

----""-____ __..... ---------- -·--···- -·· . ...::. ______ :.__,,.:, ________ .. ..__ .. ._ .. -~--=------"-'-'---

-- . . .. _.__ __ , __ ------· ·- .. ·----·- ·-- -· .. ·- ·- ··-· - _____________ _............._ _ _,_____ 

... ~ "· -

... ·- ·-·-········-···------- _ ___.. __ ....,:...;..._ .. , ..... __ ,_....__ ____ , 

·--~----·-·-~----------- -:-----···- -· .. '-~--~~~ 

- ·-··-· . --·-····------------~-'---'"'-'------'---------"----~ ...... 

·-·-·--- ----·---------······ .. -- • 
. 

. I • REF ID:A10502-

-- ------...,..------....,,----------..---~~ 

~-Z:~4~. rl__~~~~~~~~~~~ J . .".i~ ~ 

/~~~JJ0' - L"~~7!_: ___ ~------ --- ----:-~ -- ~---JL ~-~-~_://.~'---pa -

-t-;..,, --~- -F~::.z&..g, j j::M_-;t _,Jf / _, 7 . . . ~±_ -- . ----·-· -.. -·-··-··-·-··· -·--·--·-. ··-· .... -----·- . ---··--~---- .<'L.--C' ...... ~--Lt -~ ·il'-"1- ........ ~)-- ~~ 

.. - .. ·-···----------·---~~~..........__-----:~~---~--
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 10, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 10, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0552. COLE CONNER v. BRITTNEY GODFREY.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 10.32




                SUMMARY OF 1995 BONUS ARRANGEMENTS


The Compensation Committee has approved and ratified 1995 target bonus payments
for Kim B. Edwards, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer.  The
maximum bonus payable under such arrangement is $160,000 in cash plus a maximum
of 20,000 shares of the Company's common stock.  Payments of the cash and stock
bonuses are based on the Company achieving certain specified objectives, sales
levels, and net income levels.

One-third of the total number of common stock shares awarded would be issued on
each of the first three anniversary dates of the date on which the Compensation
Committee determines the total number of shares to be awarded.  The shares
awarded will be issued at a purchase price equal to par value.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 09, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 09, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0132. IN THE INTEREST OF: B. B., A CHILD (FATHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014JV096