alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification of**

**Chief Executive 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, Wayne A. Whitener, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)               The Form 10-Kfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               The informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial 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/ Wayne  A. Whitener |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                             |  Wayne A.  Whitener                     |
|                             |  President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|                             |  (Principal  Executive Officer)         |
|                                  |                                              |                                     |  |

 

----
# USS Albany Arrives in Faslane

## From  U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa / U.S. Sixth Fleet Public Affairs 

This port visit to Faslane reinforces the United States’ commitment to our Allies and partners in the region and gives Albany and her crew the opportunity to enjoy the history and culture of the region. The U.S. and U.K. regularly work alongside each other through exercises and operations in support of Allied and partner interests.

Fast-attack submarines are multi-mission platforms enabling five of the six Navy maritime strategy core capabilities - sea control, power projection, forward presence, maritime security and deterrence. They are designed to excel in anti-submarine warfare, anti-ship warfare, strike warfare, special operations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, irregular warfare and mine warfare. Fast-attack submarines project power ashore with special operations forces and Tomahawk cruise missiles in the prevention or preparation of regional crises.

Albany was commissioned in 1990 and is one of 62 completed submarines of the Los Angeles-class. The Los Angeles class contains more nuclear submarines than any other class in the world. The class was preceded by the Sturgeon class and followed by the Seawolf. Except for USS Hyman G. Rickover (SSN 709), all submarines of this class are named after American cities and a few towns (e.g. Key West, Florida, and Greeneville, Tennessee).

Commander, Task Force 69 is responsible for submarine warfare operations in the U.S. European Command and U.S. African Command areas of responsibility.

For over 80 years, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-U.S. Naval Forces Africa (NAVEUR-NAVAF) has forged strategic relationships with allies and partners, leveraging a foundation of shared values to preserve security and stability.

Headquartered in Naples, Italy, NAVEUR-NAVAF operates U.S. naval forces in the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) areas of responsibility. U.S. Sixth Fleet is permanently assigned to NAVEUR-NAVAF, and employs maritime forces through the full spectrum of joint and naval operations.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John C. Morris, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.:



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small
business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: March 23, 2005   
|                       
|/s/ John C. Morris     
|John C. Morris         
|Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2010 

y0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2010 

138977 

DANIEL FRANK, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 138977 

 COA: 289961 

Marquette CC: 08-045651-AA 

STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2009 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
#### McCarty *v.*Pinkston.

5-1510

311 S. W. 2d 773

Opinion delivered March 24, 1958.

[Rehearing denied April 28, 1958]

*Douglas Bradley,*for appellant.

*Barrett, Wheatley, Smith*& *Deacon,*for appellee.

Sam Robinson, Associate Justice.

The issue is whether a written lease was terminated by an oral agreement coupled with delivery of possession of the premises. On July 1, 1953, the parties entered into a written contract whereby Walton McCarty leased to L. D. and James S. Pinkston a building in Trumann for the consideration of $250 per month. The lease was for a term of five years. In May, 1954, Walton McCarty sold the property to his brother, E. L. McCarty, the sale being subject to the lease. Thereafter Walton McCarty acted as agent for his brother in dealing with the Pinkstons in regard to the lease. The Pinkstons paid the rent through the month of June, 1956, and vacated the building during that month.

In September, 1956, the MeCartys filed this suit for rent alleged to have accrued subsequent to June, 1956. An answer was filed, alleging that the lease had been canceled by mutual agreement and possession of the property had been delivered to the MeCartys. The cause was tried to a jury and the issues were whether the parties had orally agreed to a cancellation of the lease and whether the Pinkstons had delivered posses*953sion to the McCartys. There was a verdict in favor of the Pinkstons, and the McCartys have appealed.

On appeal there is only the question of whether there is any substantial evidence to sustain the verdict. A written lease may be terminated by an executed parol agreement. *Ford*v. *Miller,*149 Ark. 443, 232 S. W. 604.

Appellants deny they made an agreement to terminate the lease and deny that they were given possession of the premises, hut appellee, L. D. Pinkston, says there was such an agreement and that he vacated the building and left the keys at Walton McCarty’s home for him. McCarty admits that he received the keys and did not return them to Pinkston. In these circumstances we cannot say there was no substantial evidence to support the verdict.

Affirmed.
Summary of Meeting between A4A and ACI- NA

June 3, 2014

List of Attendees

Peter Ford, EPA

Kevin Weiss, EPA

Erika Farris, EPA

Bryan Rittenhouse, EPA

Chris Oswal, ACI-NA

Tim Pohle, A4A

Jeff Longsworth, Barnes & Thornburg

Marianne Csaky, A4A

Richard Davis, Beveridge & Diamond

Summary of Meeting

During the meeting, permitting issues relating to multiple operators (i.e., airport authority and multiple 

tenants) at an airport facility were discussed, including:

 Operator responsibilities for monitoring and reporting, including NOI submittals

 Point of compliance for monitoring purposes

 Coordination on SWPPP development
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

KAREN RIGHTER-MALESKO, : Case No. 3:18-cv-00126
Plaintiff, : District Judge Walter H. Rice
: Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
vs. :

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recom-
mendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #11), to
whom this case was originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Noting that
no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections, if any,
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), has expired, this Court hereby ADOPTS said Report
and Recommendations.

It is therefore ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendations docketed on August
6, 2019 (Doc. #11) is ADOPTED in full;

2. The Commissioner’s non-disability finding is vacated;
3. This matter is REMANDED to the Social Security

Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for payment of benefits; and


4. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
MPD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0371

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICKEY PAYNE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including May 27, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 20 2021

04/20/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0371
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1


Summary of Directors’ Compensation
The Compensation Committee of NewMarket Corporation (the “Company”) approved new directors' compensation, which is effective October 1, 2015. The Company pays the following quarterly fees for non-employee committee membership: 
	
				
	Audit Committee Member
	$
	1,250
	


	Audit Committee Chairman
	4,375
	


	Compensation Committee Chairman
	3,125
	


	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chairman
	2,500
	





The Company pays each of its non-employee directors a quarterly fee of $20,000. In addition to this amount, the Company pays the Lead Director a quarterly fee of $6,250. The Company does not pay employee members of the Board of Directors separately for their service on the Board of Directors or its committees. 
Any director who was elected to the Board of Directors on or before February 23, 1995 and who retires from the Board of Directors will receive $12,000 per year for life after age 60. The $12,000 is payable in quarterly installments. The retirement payments to former directors may be discontinued under certain circumstances. 
Under the 2014 Incentive Compensation and Stock Plan (“the Plan”), each non-employee director is awarded on each July 1 that number of whole shares of the Company’s common stock that, when multiplied by the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the immediately preceding business day equals as nearly as possible but does not exceed $60,000. The shares of the Company’s common stock awarded under the Plan are nonforfeitable and the recipient directors immediately and fully vest in shares of the Company’s common stock issued under the Plan. Subject only to such limitations on transfer as may be specified by applicable securities laws, directors may sell their shares under the Plan at any time.
Unassociated Document


    AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

    


    THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
is made this 17th day of
December, 2008 by and between EAU TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), and WADE
R. BRADLEY, an
individual resident of the State of Georgia (the “Employee”)

    


    BACKGROUND

    


    WHEREAS, Company and Employee
previously entered into an employment agreement dated October 24, 2006 (the
“Employment
Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the
Employment Agreement to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the “Code”).

    


    NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration
of ten dollars and
other for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as
follows:

    


    1.           Section
(i) of Schedule 1 attached to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows:

    


    (i)           “Permanent
Disability” shall mean (i) the inability of the Employee to engage in any
substantial gainful activity with respect to the Employee’s duties with the
Company by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months; (ii) the receipt by the
Employee of income replacement benefits for a period of not less than three (3)
months under an accident and health plan covering employees of the Company by
reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be
expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than twelve (12) months; or (iii) the Employee is determined to be
disabled by the Social Security Administration.

     

    2.           In
all other respects, the provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect.

     

    


    


    


    [Remainder
of page intentionally left blank.]

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have executed and delivered this Agreement on the date set forth
above.

    


    
      
        	 	

                COMPANY:

                EAU
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

              	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Karl
      Hellman	 
	 	Print
      Name: Karl Hellman	 
	 	Title:            Director	 
	 	 	 	 


      



    
      
        
          	 	EMPLOYEE:	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                   

                	
                  By:
      

                	/s/ Wade
      R. Bradley	 
	 	 	Wade
      R. Bradley
EX PARTE Robert BROWN

CR-16-0397

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Coffee Cir. Ct.
#### George E. RAY *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 74-37

509 S.W. 2d 830

Opinion delivered June 3, 1974

*696
      *Harold L. Hall,*Public Defender, by: *Lloyd R. Haynes,*Dep. Public Defende-r, for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *0. H. Hargraves,*Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*Lee A. Munson,*Pros. Atty., *by. John Wesley Hall, Jr.,*Dep. Pros. Atty., amicus curiae.

CONLEY Byrd, Justice.

Appellant George E. Ray on July 13, 1970, as a result of some plea bargaining entered a plea of guilty and accepted sentences of three years on a charge of burglary and a charge of grand larceny with the sentences to run concurrently. The commitment directed that he serve one third of his sentence before being eligible for parole. He escaped from the Department of Corrections unit at Cummins on January 7, 1971 and was not returned to custody until March 15, 1973. Thereafter, he filed the post conviction petition here involved contending that he had ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was entitled to credit for time spent in the county jail prior to his sentence. The trial court found against him on both issues and he appeals. We agree with the trial court.

The record shows that appellant made a written confession shortly after his arrest. He now contends that it was involuntary but his employed counsel testified that during her discussions with him before the plea of guilty he made no such contention. On the record presented before us it appears that his trial counsel gave him not only adequate but rather effective representation in negotiating the three year plea.

Neither do we find any merit in the contention that appellant is entitled to credit for the eight months he spent in jail prior to the sentence. Appellant here entered a “negotiated plea” wherein he had some bargaining power and by agreeing to the entry of a guilty plea for a specified sentence he necessarily waived any right to assert a claim for a lesser sentence including a credit for jail time.

Affirmed.
Joseph Glenn SAVICKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1696

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 13, 2018

Joseph Glenn Savicki, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882342
<NAME> 90CC
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         122,488
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               233,486
<PP&E>                                       5,791,530
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,987,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,037,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,298
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,007,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,037,745
<SALES>                                        671,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               677,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  305,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                371,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            371,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   371,437
<EPS-BASIC>                                      48.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>