alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.(HH)








Exhibit (10)(hh)




J. ALEXANDER’S CORPORATION (THE “COMPANY”)




SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION



I. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive additional
compensation for serving as directors of the Company. The following table sets forth current rates
of cash compensation for the Company’s non-employee directors.




	 	 	 	 	 
	RETAINERS	 	2009
	 
	Board retainer
	 	$	15,000	 





In addition, non-employee directors are paid a fee of $1,500 for each attended meeting of the Board
or any Committee of which he or she is a member. Each director who is not also an employee of the
Company is eligible for grants of non-qualified stock options under the Amended and Restated 2004
Equity Incentive Plan. Generally, directors who are not employees of the Company have been awarded
options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock upon joining the Board and options to purchase
1,000 shares of Common Stock for each succeeding year of service, with the exercise price equal to
the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of grant. Pursuant to the terms of the
Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, no non-employee director is eligible for a grant
of incentive stock options under the Plan.



II. EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION. The following table sets forth the 2009 annual base salaries
and the fiscal 2008 performance bonuses provided to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and other highly compensated executive officers (the “Named Officers”).




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	FISCAL 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	2008
	 	 	 	 	 	 	BONUS 
	EXECUTIVE OFFICER	 	2009 SALARY	 	AMOUNT
	 
	Lonnie J. Stout II
	 	$	376,000	 	 	$	—	 
	R. Gregory Lewis
	 	$	196,000	 	 	$	—	 
	J. Michael Moore
	 	$	155,000	 	 	$	—	 
	Mark A. Parkey
	 	$	155,000	 	 	$	—	 





Given the current economic environment, the Company determined not to establish a cash incentive
bonus program for executive officers based on performance targets for 2009.



The Named Officers are eligible to receive incentive awards pursuant to the Company’s equity
incentive plans.



III. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. The foregoing information is summary in nature. Additional information
regarding director and Named Officer compensation will be provided in the Company’s proxy statement
to be filed in connection with the 2009 annual meeting of shareholders.




51
FACT SHEET

Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)

NATIONAL GUARD

MISSION

The EMAC is a national mutual aid partnership agreement allowing state-to-state assistance during 

state or federally declared emergencies. The EMAC is about governors helping governors in need.

OVERVIEW

The EMAC concept was approved by Congress in 1996 (Public Law 104-321) and 

provides governors a means to quickly request assistance for any type of 

emergency, from earthquakes to acts of terrorism. When state resources are 

overwhelmed, other states, to include National Guard units nationwide, can step 

in and fill shortfalls. In responding to national emergencies and disasters, the 

EMAC is instrumental in providing advice and assistance to governors in 

identifying, selecting, requesting and deploying all types of resources.

The response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita showcased the largest deployment of 

state-to-state aid in history and stands as a testament to the EMAC’s effectiveness 

in sharing resources through mutual aid agreements. The EMAC facilitated the 

deployment of 19,431 civilians and 46,488 National Guard members from 50 

states, three territories and the District of Columbia to the affected areas in 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and. More recently, the EMAC provided 

critical assistance to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands after the devastating 

hurricanes Irma and Maria, and in response to civil disturbances in the District of 

Columbia, Washington, Oregon and Wisconsin.

The EMAC provides another way for states to receive interstate aid in a disaster, 

outside of federal assistance. All 50 states, three territories and the District of 

Columbia have authorized EMAC agreements.

All 50 states, 3 

territories & D.C.

have EMACs

State-to-State

assistance during 

emergencies

Prepositioned

forces & 

equipment

EMAC CAPABILITIES

• Damage assessment

• Disaster Recovery

• Public health

• Logistics support

• Security

• Communications

• Firefighting 

• Search and rescue

• Aviation support

• Community outreach

• Debris clearance

• Biological and HAZMAT
# Accessibility Report

- Filename: 
- NGB Correspondence with Chemrisk regardging BP's Deep Water Horizon Explosion.pdf

- Report created by: 
- Organization: 

[Enter personal and organization information through the Preferences > Identity dialog.]

## Summary

The checker found problems which may prevent the document from being fully accessible.

- Needs manual check: 2
- Passed manually: 0
- Failed manually: 0
- Skipped: 1
- Passed: 25
- Failed: 4

## Detailed Report

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          17,652
<SECURITIES>                                    18,321
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,406
<PP&E>                                          19,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,918
<BONDS>                                         11,689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       228,334
<OTHER-SE>                                   (201,220)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,114
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,074)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)


</TABLE>
Angelo M. WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3943

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02190]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans; Interest Rate 
for Second Quarter FY 2022

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Military Reservist Economic Injury 
Disaster Loans interest rate for loans approved on or after January 28, 
2022.

DATES: Issued on 01/28/2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Small Business Administration publishes 
an interest rate for Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans 
(13 CFR 123.512) on a quarterly basis. The interest rate will be 2.940 
for loans approved on or after January 28, 2022.

Barbara Carson,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2022-02190 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
EX-10.37






Exhibit 10.37




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

CHICO’S FAS, INC. VICE PRESIDENT SEVERANCE PLAN




     WHEREAS, Chico’s FAS, Inc. (the “Employer”) maintains the Chico’s FAS, Inc. Vice President
Severance Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees;



     WHEREAS, the Employer deems it necessary and desirable to amend the Plan to provide enhanced
benefits to eligible employees who incur a termination of employment as a result of a reduction in
force occurring on January 29, 2009; and



     WHEREAS, this First Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those
provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the amendment;



     NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority reserved to the Employer by Section 7.01 of the
Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective January 29, 2009, as follows:




	 	•	 	Section 4.01(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following to the end
thereof which shall read as follows:






Notwithstanding the preceding to the contrary, with respect to a Terminated
Employee whose termination of employment is as a result of the Sponsor’s reduction
in force occurring on January 29, 2009, such Terminated Employee shall receive
seven (7) months (instead of six (6) months) of the Employee’s Annual Base Salary.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has caused this amendment to be executed by a duly authorized
representative this 26 day of March, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Chico’s FAS, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Manuel O. Jessup 	 
	 	Its:  	Executive Vice President — Human Resources 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




-2-
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Annual Report of Kevcorp Services, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Kirch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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 all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Date: September 28, 2005                                        By: /s/ Kevin Kirch

Kevin Kirch

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
Constance CHAPIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-4302

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Geesey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gross, Taylor and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10737

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSEPH WILLIAM WOLFE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:08

- CR

- 62

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joseph William Wolfe, federal prisoner # 37730

- 177, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his motion for review of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), alleging that he was eligible for sentencing wi thout regard to the applicable statutory minimum sentence. He also seeks to proceed IFP on appeal from the dismissal of his motion “to request a writ to vacate” his federal conviction and sentence, which
he claimed resulted from fraud and errors of a cons titutional dimension

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10737 Document: 00513366771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2016No. 15

- 10737

2 There are no nonfrivolous appellate issues because the district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Wolfe’s motion s

. This appeal therefore is from the denial of “ meaningless, unauthorized motion [s] .” United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Wolfe has failed to show that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (inte rnal quotation mark s omitted). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED , see id. , and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2 ; Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997) . Wolfe’s motion for the appointment of c ounsel and his motion for relief from a void federal judgment also are DENIED. Case: 15-10737 Document: 00513366771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2016
Name of Firm Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal 

Numbering System (DUNS)

Primary North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS)

Secondary: North American Industry 

Classification System

Third: North American Industry 

Classification System

Capabilities Description/Type of 

Business Capabilities This firm is interested in this type of work

Vendor Point of Contact (POC) POC 1 Email POC 1 Phone Number Primary email 

POC 2 POC 2 Email POC 2 Phone Number Company Phone Number

Web Site Business Size Small Disadvantaged Business 

(SDB)?

Certified 8(a) Firm with the Small 

Business Administration? 

Yes or No 

Service Disabled Veteran Owned 

(SDVOSB) Small Business? 

Yes or No

Certified Historically Underutilized 

Business Zone (HUBZone)? 

Yes or No

Woman Owned Small Business 

(WOSB)? Yes or No

Economically Disadvantaged 

Woman Owned Small Business 

(EDWOSB)? Yes or No

Native Hawaiian Organization (NHO) 

Yes or No

Approved Government Contract 

Vehicles (GSA; GWAC; SEWP, 

SETA, etc)

Additional Information Capabilities Additional Information

This is a compilation of information submitted by firms looking for business opportunity with the National Guard 

Bureau in the National Capital Region and may be used by the Small Business Specialists in each State and 

Territory. The NGB's Contract Specialists may also use this information for market research purposes or prime 

contractors for subcontracting opportunities.

 Please email: ng.ncr.ngb-arng.mbx.ngb-osbp@army.mil to be included on this list, or to provide updated 

information. 

**NOTE: Information may have changed. Verify all info with SAM.gov
Shamel THOMAS, DOC# E07855, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2366

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Claude RUTLEDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4058

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

Claude Rutledge, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
**                EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**Certification of**

**Chief Financial Officer of**

**TGC Industries, Inc.**

**Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Thiscertification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and accompanies the annual reporton Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,2008, of TGC Industries, Inc. (the “Company”).  I, James K. Brata, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheForm 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Kpursuant to Item 601(6)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 
| Date: March 16, 2009 | By:    |   /s/ James K. Brata                     |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |  James K. Brata                               |
|                      |   |  Chief Financial Officer                      |
|                      |   |  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                           |        |                                                    |  |

 

----
#### Aaron vs. Anderson.

(The same principle decided as in *Cornish vs. Sargent,*ante.)

*Appeal from Union Circuit Court.*

Hon. Abner A. Stith, Circuit Judge.

Carleton, for appellant.

Lee, for appellee!

Mr. Justice Hanly

delivered *the*opinion of *the Court.*

The facts of this case are identical with those in *Cornish vs. Sargent,*just determined, except that the form of action in this was assumpsit, and the defendant below only offered to file one plea — the general issue.

We hold, in this case, as we did in *Cornish vs. Sargent,*that the defendant below should have been permitted to file his plea of the general issue notwithstanding the rule of practice of the Court requiring the pleadings to be made up in all causes by the fourth day of the return term; and having been denied this light, the judgment of the Union Circuit Court in this behalf is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions that the defendant below be allowed to file his plea on or before the calling of the cause in its order on the docket.

Absent, Hon. C. C. Scott.
Anthony Jeff WOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3979

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018.

Anthony Jeff Wood, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Ransone v. State*, 48 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2010) ; *Mount v. State*, 97 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ; *Cregg v. State*, 43 So. 3d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

KEVIN MILES, Case No. 1:18-cv-330
Plaintiff,
Dlott, J.
vs. Litkovitz, M.J.
JENNIFER MCELFRESH, REPORT AND
Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

On May 14, 2018, plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc. 1). On May 25, 2018, the undersigned issued a Deficiency Order, ordering plaintiff
to pay the full filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff has now
filed a motion to dismiss this action without prejudice in response to the Deficiency Order.
(Doc. 3). Therein, plaintiff indicates that he mistakenly “filed in haste an incorrect vehicle for
relief.” (/d. at PageID 15).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) provides that the Court may dismiss an action “at the plaintiff's
instance” upon “such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.”

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), it is RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice

one. o/h sen 22 Lethon

Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate J we



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
KEVIN MILES, Case No. 1:18-cv-330
Plaintiff,
Dlott, J.
vs. Litkovitz, M.J.
JENNIFER MCELFRESH,
Defendants.
NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas y. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of CytRx Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that:(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: April 1, 2008 /s/ MITCHELL K. FOGELMAN   Mitchell K. Fogelman   Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to CytRx Corporation and will be retained by CytRxCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anExhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
Lynn HAMLET, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-100

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 11, 2018]

Lynn Hamlet, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed. See**Rodriguez v. State* , 826 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), *rev. denied* , 848 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 2003).

May, Damoorgian and Kuntz, JJ., concur.