alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w10






Exhibit 10.10



[DATE]




[Name]

[Address]



Re: Board of Director Compensation – Restricted Stock Unit Award



Dear _________:




     The purpose of this agreement is to confirm that, effective ______, 20___, you have been
awarded ___ restricted stock units of Talbots common stock under the Talbots Restated Directors
Stock Plan, the terms of which are incorporated herein, as part of your compensation for service as
a Talbots director. [Pursuant to the stock ownership guidelines which are part of the approved
director compensation program, ___ of these share units will be mandatorily deferred into the
Director Deferred Compensation Program until the date of cessation of your service on the Board.]



     The ______share units awarded will be subject to a one-year vesting period established under
the program, and will therefore vest on ______, 20___. At such time, ______shares will be issued
to you in your name [and the balance will be deferred until you leave the Board.]



     Upon any cessation of your service as a member of the Board of Directors, any unvested
restricted stock units that you hold at that time will be forfeited and will not be permitted to
continue to vest unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors. The restricted stock units
subject to this agreement, to the extent then outstanding and unvested, shall immediately vest upon
a Change in Control Event, as such term is defined in the Company’s 2003 Executive Stock Based
Incentive Plan.



     Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this agreement, it is the intention of the parties
that this agreement comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(“Code”), and the regulations and guidance issued thereunder from time to time by the Department of
the Treasury, and this agreement and the payments of any benefits hereunder will be operated and
administered accordingly. You shall be entitled to receive payment in the form of shares of
Talbots common stock for each vested restricted stock unit no later than ninety days following a
Change in Control Event which results in an acceleration of vesting (provided that in the event
that such Change in Control Event is not a change in ownership, effective control or a substantial
portion of the assets of the Company, in each case within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code
and the regulations and guidance thereunder, then the underlying shares will not be issued to you
until the originally scheduled vesting date of ______, 20___or within 90 days thereafter).



     The Talbots Human Resource Department will provide you with additional information in the near
future on other particulars of the program. In the interim, please let me know if I can assist in
any way.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,







THE TALBOTS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Richard T. O’Connell, Jr. 	 
	 	 	Secretary, Board of Directors
#### Randy Lee YEAGER, et al. v. Ronald G. ROBERTS, et ux.

85-222

702 S.W.2d 793

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered February 3, 1986

*Bassett Law Firm,*by: *Wm. Robert Still, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Patrick Parsons,*for appellee.

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

The circuit judge granted the appellees’ motion for a new trial because the jury’s verdict was against the preponderance of the evidence. On appeal it is argued *157that since the appellees, plaintiffs below, did not move for a directed verdict, they were precluded by ARCP Rule 50(e) from moving for a new trial. We find no merit to this argument and affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is a negligence case involving an accident between a tractor-trailer rig and a car. The issue of liability was virtually conceded by the appellants. The appellants are the driver and owner of the rig. Mrs. Roberts was injured when her vehicle left the highway between Springdale and Huntsville on a curve. She and several others testified that Yeager, the truck driver, forced her off the road. During closing arguments the appellants’ lawyer said “We will concede the accident was our fault.” Evidence of the appellees’ damages was introduced, but the jury returned a verdict for the appellants.

The appellees did not move for a directed verdict at the close of the case but did move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied, and then made a motion for a new trial. The appellants argue that Rule 50(e), as interpreted by us, requires a plaintiff to move for a directed verdict or be precluded from filing a motion for a new trial because the verdict is against the preponderance of the evidence. Rule 50(e) has nothing to do with such a motion for a new trial. That rule provides:

> When there has been a trial by jury, the failure of a party to move for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all evidence, or to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, because of insufficiency of the evidence will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict.

 A party does not have to make a motion testing the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury as a prerequisite to making a motion for a new trial. Motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are made to preserve a later argument on the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury. ARCP 59 specifically states a motion for a new trial may be granted for eight reasons, one of which is where the verdict is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Such a motion does not test the sufficiency of the evidence and is not precluded by Rule 50(e).

*158On appeal we affirm a decision granting a new trial unless we find a manifest or clear abuse of discretion. *Landis*v. *Hastings,*276 Ark. 135, 633 S.W.2d 26 (1982). None occurred here. The appellees’ motion for reimbursement of costs is granted pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e).

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 31, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2022

Lower Tribunal No. F14-24825B

________________

Nathan Curry,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de la O, Judge.

Nathan Curry, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
State of Wisconsin

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

101 S. Webster Street

Box 7921

Madison WI 53707-7921

March 5,2012

George Czerniak

Acting Division Director

Air & Radiation Division

77 W. Jackson Blvd (A-183)

Chicago II, 60604

Scott Walker, Governor

Cathy Stepp, Secretary

Telephone 608-266-2621

Toll Free 1-888-936-7463

1IY Access via relay - 711

/rriJ

n..--.....;;-,

WISCONSIN

DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Subject: Wisconsin State Implementation Plan Submittal for PM,.5

Dear 1\1r. Czerniak:

On May 12, 2011 Wisconsin DNR submitted a request to US EPA Region V to revise its State Implementation

Plan (SIP) to include new permit requirements relating to PM,.,. That submittal included pennanent rules to:

• Define major source thresholds and significant emission increase levels;

• Establish significant impact levels and increment consumption thresholds;

• Establish inter-pollutant trading ratios for PM,.5. SO, and NOx; and

• ClarifY existing non-attaimpent area pennitting rules.

On July 21, 2011 US EPA through a memorandum announced a change in its policy concerning the development

and adoption of inter-pollutant trading provisions for PM,.5 under state nonattaimnent area New Source Review

programs. In it, EPA states it no longer supports the presumptive ratios provided in the preamble to the 2008

PM,., New Source Review Implementations Rule and that any ratio involving PM,.5 precursors submitted to EPA

for approval for use in a state's inter-pollutant offset program for PM,.5 nonattaimnent areas must be accompanied

by a technical demonstration that shows the net air quality benefits ofsuch ratio for the PM,.5 nonattainment area

in which it will be applied.

At this time Wisconsin has not conducted a technical demonstration to show that a net air-quality benefit would

occur in the 3 county non-attainment area ifthe previously presumptive SO, and NOx ratios were used in a new

source review. Therefore, in order to not hold up approval ofthe other elements in Wisconsin's May 12,2011

request, Wisconsin DNR withdraws its request to have s. NR 408.06 (1) (em), Wis. Adm. Code approved in the

Wisconsin's SIP. .

Questions regarding this request Can be directed to Andrew Stewart ofmy staff at 608-266-6876 or

andrew.stewart@wisconsin.gov .

Sincerely,

~.~~ Bart Spons r, Director

Bureau of Air Management

Cc: Pat Stevens-AD/8

Andrew Stewart-AMl7

Ralph Patterson-AMl7

dnr.wi.gov

wisconsin.gov Naturally WISCONSIN
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Dialex Minerals Inc.
(the  Company)  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alexander
G. Stewart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his/her knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

By:                                    /s/ Alexander G. Stewart
                                      ----------------------------------
                                           Alexander G. Stewart
                                           Chief Executive Officer


                                      December 17, 2004

This  certification   accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 99.3


                          SHELBOURNE PROPERTIES I INC,
                          FORM 10-Q SEPTEMBER 30, 2002


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Shelbourne Properties I Inc., (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies 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 and
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 Partnership.

Date:  November 13, 2002                         /s/ Michael L. Ashner
                                                 ---------------------
                                                     Michael L. Ashner
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Date:  November 13, 2002                        /s/ Carolyn B. Tiffany
                                                ----------------------
                                                    Carolyn B. Tiffany
                                               Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1792-1793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00442]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Modification Issued Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit modification issued.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

[[Page 1793]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcfdfffdccd9ced1d5c8cffcd2cfda92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5949694a5b0a7b8bca1a695bba6b3fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 26, 2021, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
modification request received. The permit modification was issued on 
January 3, 2022, to:

Polar Latitudes Inc.
Permit No. 2018-015

Erika N. Davis,
Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2022-00442 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Southwest Region

 

Arkansas, Louisiana,

New Mexico, Oklahoma,

Texas

Airplane Certification Office, ASW-150

2601 Meacham Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76137

May 18, 2015

Mr. Bob Frizzell

M7 Aerospace LLC

10823 N.E. Entrance Road

San Antonio, TX 78216

Dear Mr. Frizzell:

Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) to

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-15-01; Amendment 39-17903

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received your letter M-5786, dated 

April 15, 2015, requesting FAA approval of Service Bulletin (SB) 227-53-012 for M7 

Aerospace LLC (M7) SA227-AT/-AC/-BC model airplanes serial numbers (S/N) AT602-631 

& 695, AC607-788 and BC762, 764, 766, & 770-789 except 784, and SB CC7-53-008 for 

SA227-CC/-DC model airplanes S/N CC827, 829, & 840-844 and DC784, 790-826, 828, 

830-839, & 845-904, both issued April 3, 2015, as an AMOC to paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2) and 

(i) of AD 2014-15-01. AD 2014-15-01 requires inspection and repair of the passenger door 

surround structure. Paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) repair cracks and repetitively inspect, and 

paragraph (i) extends repetitive inspections in accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT 

INSTRUCTIONS section of M7 Aerospace SB 227-53-009 and CC7-53-005, both issued: 

November 15, 2013.

Your proposal provides an acceptable level of safety since the new SB 227-553-012 and 

CC7-53-008 information provides for installation of alternate doubler part number 

27K24191-009, which is equivalent in strength to the existing part number 27K24191-001 

doubler required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2) and (i) of the AD. The alternate doubler 

maintains the same inspection threshold, intervals and methods, while eliminating possible 

interference with existing antenna installations on some of the affected airplanes.

The Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office (FW ACO) approves your AMOC proposal to 

paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2) and (i) of AD 2014-15-01 to install alternate doubler part number 

27K24191-009 in place of existing part number 27K24191-001 doubler using the procedures 

in SB 227-553-012 and CC7-53-008, both issued April 3, 2015.

All provisions of AD 2014-15-01 that are not specifically referenced above remain fully 

applicable and must be complied with accordingly.
ascentium

AMENDMEIVT AND MODIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS

Agreement No. 2167754

*ni» AMHNDMEN I AND MODIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS (■‘Modification"), made

this 27fh day of Febmar>. 2017, by and between Astetitium Capital LI.C, Iwving olTiecs located at 23970

U.S Highway S9 North. Kitigwood. IX 71339 (‘‘Crcdiiof"), atsd Central USA Wireless, LLC, having

ofTtces located M 112(0 Monigomcry Road Dayton, OH 45429 ("Debtof").

WHEREAS, the Creditor and Debtor arc panics to a certairt Ap'ecmcnt ("AgrccmeRt ’) as

rcfrfOTccd above; astd

WHEREAS, the Agreement provided ftw. among other things, terms ofpayment lor the equipment

which was the subject ofthe Agrccntcni. and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the terms ofpayment ursdet the Agreement, on the terms

$et forth herein.

NOW, I KEREFORE. in consideration ofthe premi-scs and the covenants and agfecmenis set forth

herein, the panics agree as follows:

Amendment of PayTOent Ferms. The payment terms in the Agreement are hereby

amended as set forth herein (sales and-or other taxes shall be added to each payment if

applicable):

a. Beginning May 1,2017, two (2) payments ofSbdS.33; due on or before the 1st of

each month;

b. Beginning July 1. 2017, fony-thrcc (43) payments ofS3,147.30, due on or before the

Jst ofeach month,

c. Ueginntng February i. 2021, one (1) payment of S2.9I8.66, due on or before

February !, 2021

EITect of Amendrntait Except as specifically modified herein, ail ofthe tenns. provLsioris

and conditions ofthe Agreement remain and continue m full force and effect. In the

event that this Modification ts not strictly adhered to. Creditor reserves the right to revoke

this Modification, in which event all payments under the Agreement wilt be due ii

originally scheduled You agree that a facsimile copy ofthis Modiricatitio ts executed by

you shall be deemed the equivalent of an originally executed copy for all purposes.

1.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set thesr hands hereto the day and year first abovewntien.

CREDITOR.

ASCENTIUM CAPITAL LLC/

DEBTOR.

CENTRAL U.SA W'lRE I.IiSS, EEC

Christopher R, Hildebrant

By: m

Name;j_____

tPruMciJ Name)

•tSigfiatorej

'Name:_____ ^

(Praileil Marat}

t-.

T>

Us-, CEO Its:

tTuk) iTitk}

EXHIBIT

I

B A-1

Case: 1:17-cv-00744-SKB Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 11/06/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 20
**Exhibit 99.1**

**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 Quarterly Report of Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen Wong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

|                                                                             |                  |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| By:                                                                         | /s/ STEPHEN WONG |   |
|                                                                             |                       |   |
| **Stephen Wong*****President and Chief Executive Office***Date: May 12,2003 |                  |

32
# Bake rAircraf t ; v r

-!/ : Octobe r 26 , 201 1 4376 9 Hdlne rDriv e Bake rCity , Orego n 9781 4 Phon e 541-523-566 3 Fax:541-523-600 7 E-mail : hctp://www.bakerdtxairport.co m U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Managemen t

Syste m 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , SE . Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mW12-14 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Petitio n for

Exemptio n i n Accordanc e wit hFAA' s requirement s unde r 14CF R11.61,11.10 1 Pleas e accep t

thi s lette r

a s ou r formal petitio n fp

r exemptio n i n accordanc e wit hth e FAA' s require

ment s establishe dunde r

1 4 CF RM.61.11.101 . I Elkho mAviation , Inc . i s se e ize dfor ai r tou r operations-define d 13 5 certificat e No . K2ZA350L . W e o i operations . Grantin g a n exemptio n w o 13 5 certificat e an di s subj e Th e aircraf

t i s o : Ou r compan y co n Elkho mAviation J 4376 9 Heihie r

Roa d Bake r City , O R9781 4 Telephon e (541 ) 523-566 3 Fa x (541 ) 523-600 7 Email : Genevieve@ B Pleas e le t m e kno w i f

yo u hav e an y additiona l question s o r concerns . Sincerely , Geneviev e Woydziak Secretary Treasure r eyempuon^^aus e o f th e limite dnumbe r

o f aircraf t tha t ar e util

91.147 . |!ni e majority o f

ou r aircraf t ar e operate dunde r

ou r aircraf t tha t woul dprovid e very limite dai r tou r safety becaus e th e aircraf t i s operatin g unde r

ou r a mrule s an dregulation s at al l times .
IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. DWIGHT LLOYD CASADY, Appellant. _3 o> <-i 

### No. 70319-6-1 5 •£"
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ^

<P FILED: May 12, 2014 

### PerCuriam— DwightCasady appeals his convictions for felony driving under the influence and first degree driving while license suspended. His counsel contends, 

### and Casady argues pro se, that the trial court erred in instructing thejurythat it had a "duty to return a verdict of guilty" if itfound all the elements ofthe offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is controlled by our decision in State v. Moore, No. 69766-8-I (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2014) and the cases cited therein. Casady raises several additional arguments in his pro se statement of additional grounds for review. He contends he "wasn'tfound guilty of a felony DUI by thejury[.] I
was found guilty of a misdemeanor DUI . . . ." Thejury found Casady guilty of "Driving 

### Underthe Influence as charged in Count One." The charge in count one was "Felony
DUI." Casady contends "itwas reversible error to admit into evidence Convictions That
are over TEN years old." But RCW 46.61.502(6)(b)(i) expressly provides that a person 

### commits felony DUI if "[t]he person has everpreviously been convicted of: VehicularNo. 70319-6-1/2
homicide while under the influence . . . , RCW 46.61.520(1 )(a)." (Emphasis added.) The parties stipulated that Casady had a prior conviction under RCW 46.61.520(1 )(a). Next, Casady contends he had a right to be present at side bars that occurred 

### during his trial. Casady does not explain why this claim can be raised for the first time


### on appeal. RAP 2.5(a). Nordoes he indicate whetherthe side bars involved legal or factual matters. See In re Pers. Restraint ofLord. 123 Wn.2d 296, 306, 868 P.2d 835, 

### 870 P.2d 964 (1994) (defendant does not have a constitutional right to be present 

### during in-chambers or bench conferences between the court and counsel on legal matters, at least where those matters "do not require a resolution ofdisputed facts"); 

### State v. Miller, Wn. App. , 316P.3d 1143, 1150(2014). He thus fails to demonstrate any basis for review or relief. 

### Finally Casady's claims ofineffective assistance of counsel are either too 

### conclusorytomeritdiscussion, RAP 10.10(c) (appellate courtwill not consider 

### additional grounds for reviewthatdo not adequately inform thecourtofthenature ofthe alleged errors), orinvolve matters outside the record.
Affirmed. FOR THE COURT: 

### All