alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w21









EXHIBIT
10.21




SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH DIRECTORS




     Our non-employee directors receive $85,000 in the form of restricted stock units on the date
of each annual meeting of stockholders. They also receive $1,000 in cash plus expenses for each
Board meeting or Committee meeting they attend.



     We pay our Lead Director an additional $7,500 in cash, our Chairman of the Audit/Finance and
Investment Committee an additional $2,500 in cash, and our Chairman on the Leadership and
Compensation Committee an additional $1,500 in cash.



     Mr. Albert, as our non-executive Chairman, receives the same compensation paid to non-employee
directors plus an additional annual stipend of $50,000.



     Mr. Brooker, as our President and Chief Executive Officer, does not receive additional or
special compensation for serving as a director. In addition, Mr. Brooker will be entitled to
receive certain payments upon our change of control or his termination of employment.



     In March 2009, our board of directors established a new compensation policy for our directors.
Effective as of the date of our 2009 annual stockholders meeting, our directors will receive an
annual retainer of $50,000 in cash, payable in quarterly installments. Each director will continue
to receive $1,000 in cash plus expenses for each Board meeting or Committee meeting they attend. In
addition, the retainers paid to the chairmen of our board committees will remain unchanged.
#### George BENNETT *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-142

503 S.W. 2d 908

Opinion delivered January 21, 1974

*Harold L. Hall,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: O. *H. Hargraves,*Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In appealing from a conviction and 21-year sentence for murder in the second degree, the appellant contends only that the State should not have been allowed to introduce a photograph of the decedent’s face, taken by the doctor who performed an autopsy to establish the cause of death. The photograph was clearly relevant. The doctor could not positively identify the decedent by name; so the photograph was used to enable another witness to identify the dead body as that of the decedent. It is now argued that the defense did not question the decedent’s identity, but even so the State had the burden of proving that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. We may add that there is nothing about the photograph that can fairly be said to be of a gruesome or inflammatory nature.

Affirmed.

Harris, C.J., not participating.
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-121940, 333-102765, 333-102764, and 333-85194 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 17, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”), and theeffectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness), appearingin the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 17, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Irael Romeo Hernandez-Morales, :

:

Petitioner(s), :

: Case Number: 1:18cv505

vs. :

: Judge Susan J. Dlott

Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,

et al., :

:

Respondent(s). :

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Karen L. Litkovitz filed on May 31, 2019 (Doc. 11), to whom this case was referred

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the

time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired June 14, 2019, hereby

ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this action is

DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A certificate of appealability will not issue under the standard set forth in Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000), because “jurists of reason” will not find it debatable

whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See

e.g., Wunderlich v. City of Flushing, No. 14-cv-14626, 2014 WL 7433411, at *3 (E.E. Mich.

Dec. 31, 2014) (applying Slack to dismissal for lack of subjection matter jurisdiction).

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that with respect to any application

by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, an appeal of any Order adopting the Report
and Recommendation will not be taken in “good faith,” therefore DENYING petitioner leave to

appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952

(6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________

Judge Susan J. Dlott

United States District Court
----

----

----

----

----

|        If to      Employer:        CytRx      Corporation       11726      San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 650       Los      Angeles, California  90049       Facsimile:                  (310)      826-5529       Attention:                  Chief      Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           If to      Employee:        Scott      Geyer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |

----

|   | “EMPLOYER” CytRx      Corporation  By: /s/      STEVEN A.      KRIEGSMAN                                                               Steven A.KriegsmanPresident & Chief Executive      Officer |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   “EMPLOYEE”  /s/ SCOTT      GEYER                                                               Scott      Geyer                                                                                |

----
Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 1 of 15  PAGEID #: 1

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 2 of 15  PAGEID #: 2

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 3 of 15  PAGEID #: 3

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 4 of 15  PAGEID #: 4

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 5 of 15  PAGEID #: 5

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 6 of 15  PAGEID #: 6

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 7 of 15  PAGEID #: 7

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 8 of 15  PAGEID #: 8

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 9 of 15  PAGEID #: 9

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 10 of 15  PAGEID #: 10

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 11 of 15  PAGEID #: 11

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 12 of 15  PAGEID #: 12

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 13 of 15  PAGEID #: 13

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 14 of 15  PAGEID #: 14

Case: 1:18-cv-00544-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 15 of 15  PAGEID #: 15
#### Green & Wilson *v.*Roane & Bell.

*Equity*— Confederate *money act*— The act of March 5th, 1867, known as the Confederate money act, being unconstitutional, no benefit is derived from it, and a court of equity can grant no relief under it.

*Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.*

IIon. "War. M. IIaReison, Circuit Judge.

*Wasscll $*Moore, for appellants.

*Bell £*Carlton, for appellees.

McCluke, J

The record in this case shows that Green & Wilson obtained a judgment against Julia Roane, in the Jefferson county circuit court, for nine hundred dollars debt, and three hundred and seven dollars and fifty-one cents damages, and that said judgment was affirmed by this court at the December term, 1866, *(24 Ark. 210.)*

*16Upon this judgment Green & Wilson sued out an execution and the same was levied on the property of Julia Roane, who, together with one M. L. Bell, gave a delivery bond. After the affirmance of the judgment in the case of Roane v. Green *&*Wilson, (24 *Ark. 210,)*by this court, the Legislature passed an act entitled “An act for the relief of persons bound by contract for the payment of Confederate money, or other paper ■currency.” The third section of this act provides that the defendants, in cases where judgments have been rendered against them, may tender the proper amount to be paid according to the rule prescribed in the first section of the act, and enjoin as to the excess of said judgments by a bill in equity.

Under the provisions of said act, Roane and Bell filed their bill and made the necessary tender. At the hearing the Jefferson county circuit court decreed a perpetual injunction as to the judgment at law, save as to the sum of $251 *16,*and decreed costs against Green & Wilson. Erom this judgment the defendants appealed to this court.

The sole ground for entering a court of equity was to receive the benefit of the act of March 5, 1867. The question presented involves the constitutionality of the act last recited. In the case of *Leach v. Smith, (25 Ark. 246,)*that act was held to be unconstitutional. It follows, therefore, that the 'decree of the court below must bo reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the bill.

JüDtíJí HaRRISON being disqualified, did not sit in this case.

Hox. Joiix Wuytocic, special Supreme Judge.
**STATE MOTORCYCLE REQUIREMENTS**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No, 3:18cr105
Plaintiff, : District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
vs.
JOSE ROBERTO GOMEZ-GUZMAN,
Defendant.

Leese
DECISION AND ENTRY

This matter came before the Court for hearing on September 5, 2018 before United
States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington, who thereafter issued a Report and
Recommendations. (Doc. #13). Having conducted a full colloquy with Defendant Jose

Roberto Gomez-Guzman, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant’s plea of guilty
is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that there is an adequate factual basis for
finding that Defendant is guilty of Previously Removed Alien Found in the United States
in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

The Court, noting that no objections to the Report and Recommendations have
been filed and that the time for filing objections has expired, hereby ADOPTS in full said
Report and Recommendations.

Therefore, based on the aforesaid, and this Court’s de novo review of the record
and the findings by the United States Magistrate Judge, this Court adopts the findings and

recommendations of the United State Magistrate Judge, and finds that Defendant Jose


Roberto Gomez-Guzman’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Final
acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea is deferred pending review of the pre-sentence
investigation report.

19-{4-1B li

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

____________________________________

)

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH )

INSTITUTE, et. al )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

RYAN SMITH, Speaker of the Ohio )

House of Representatives, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

No. 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW

Judge Timothy S. Black

Judge Karen Nelson Moore

Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

PROPOSED AGENDA FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

1. The applicability of the constraints set forth in the Rule 26(f) Report to Intervenors;

2. The form of the fee report; and 

3. Timing of Plaintiffs’ Document Productions.

Defendants and Intervenors have informed Plaintiffs that they object to the first two

agenda items as premature for the Court’s consideration. Agenda item #3 was added at the 

request of Defendants. While Defendants have not raised this issue in any meet and confer 

communications and have failed to identify any specific issues they have regarding the timing of 

Plaintiffs document production, Plaintiffs are quite willing to discuss this item today with the 

Court.

August 31, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 72 Filed: 08/31/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 744
T. Alora Thomas

Dale E. Ho

Theresa J. Lee

Emily Rong Zhang

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004 

Tel.: (212) 549-2500

athomas@aclu.org

dho@aclu.org

tlee@aclu.org

erzhang@aclu.org

Paul Moke (0014099) 

Cooperating Attorney for ACLU of Ohio 

Wilmington College*

1252 Pyle Center 

Wilmington, Ohio 45177 

Tel.: 937-725-7501 

paul.moke@gmail.com 

* Institutional affiliation for the purpose of 

identification only

Kyunghoon John Woo**

Covington & Burling LLP

1999 Avenue of the Stars

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel.: (424) 332-4800

/s/ Freda J. Levenson, trial attorney

Freda J. Levenson (0045916)

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Fdtn.

4506 Chester Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44103

Tel.: (614) 586-1959

Facsimile: (216) 472-2210

flevenson@acluohio.org

Robert Fram

Nitin Subhedar

Jeremy Goldstein

Alexia Romero

Covington & Burling LLP

One Front Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel.: (415) 591-6000

rfram@cov.com

jgoldstein@cov.com

nsubhedar@cov.com

Michael Baker

Perrin Cooke

Peter Rechter

Isaac Wood

Robert Day** 

Kaitlyn Demers**

Covington & Burling LLP

850 Tenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Tel.: (202) 662-6000 

mbaker@cov.com

pcooke@cov.com

prechter@cov.com

iwood@cov.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

**pro hac vice application pending

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 72 Filed: 08/31/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 745
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Michael Baker, hereby certify that this Proposed Agenda was served upon all counsel 

of record in this case via ECF.

/s/ Michael C. Baker

Michael Baker

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 72 Filed: 08/31/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 746
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02241]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4535-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]


Wyoming; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-4535-DR), dated April 11, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 7, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy J. 
Dragani, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Tammy L. Littrell as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02241 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC f/k/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Timothy D. GRUNDMANN, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4521

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The parties' joint stipulation for dismissal filed February 21, 2018, is treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal and is granted. This appeal is dismissed.
zmtp_ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 



ROSENTHAL & ROSENTHAL, INC.


1370 Broadway


New York, NY  10018







October 29, 2015


 


Zoom Telephonics, Inc.


207 South Street


Boston, MA  02111







Ladies and Gentlemen:







Reference is made to the Financing Agreement entered into between us dated December 18, 2012, as amended and/or supplemented (the “Financing Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given them in the Financing Agreement.







This will confirm that the Financing Agreement is hereby amended:








	
1.  

	
Effective October 1, 2015, as follows:













	
(a)  

	
Section 3.4 is amended and restated in its entirety so as to read as follows:












“3.4    A statement of all of Lender's charges shall accompany each monthly statement of the Loan Account and such charges shall be payable by Borrower within 5 Business Days after receipt of such statement. In lieu of the separate payment of charges, Lender, at its option, shall have the right to debit the amount of such charges to Borrower's Loan Account, which charges shall be deemed to be first paid by amounts subsequently credited to the Loan Account. As more fully provided in Section 9.2 hereof, in no event shall the interest charges hereunder exceed the Maximum Rate.” ; and








	
2.  

	
Effective December 1, 2015, as follows:













	
(a)  

	
Section 1.22 is amended and restated in its entirety so as to read as follows:












“1.22. “Margin” shall mean two and one quarter percent (2.25%) per annum.”








	
(b)  

	
Section 3.1 is amended and restated in its entirety so as to read as follows:












“3.1   Borrower agrees to pay to Lender each month interest (computed on the basis


of the actual number of days elapsed over a year of 360 days) (a) on that portion of the average daily balances in the Loan Account during the preceding month that does not exceed the Loan Availability at a rate per annum (the "Effective Rate") equal to the Prime Rate plus the Margin and (b) on the amount of Over-advances, if any, at a rate of 3% per annum in excess of the Effective Rate. Any change in the effective interest rates due to a change in the Prime Rate shall take effect on the date of such change in the Prime Rate provided, that, with respect to Lender’s charges, no decrease in the Prime Rate below 3.25% per annum shall be given any effect.”









  





1











  






 


Except as hereinabove specifically set forth, all of the terms and conditions of the Financing Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall continue unmodified.







Very truly yours,







ROSENTHAL & ROSENTHAL, INC.









By: /s/Thomas D. Lauria                                                                           


Thomas D. Lauria, Senior Vice President


 


Agreed:







ZOOM TELEPHONICS, INC.












By: /s/Frank Manning                                                                           


Frank Manning, President and CEO


 




2
HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 22331 1977
HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 22332 1977
HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 22333 1977
HeinOnline -- 42 Fed. Reg. 22334 1977
Jose M. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2072

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.