alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.9


 


NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


 


DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTOR

COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS


 


Overview


 


NTIC uses a combination of cash and long-term equity-based incentive compensation in
the form of annual stock option grants to attract and retain qualified non-employee candidates to serve on the Board of Directors.


 


Annual Retainers; Meeting Fees


 


Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $15,000 for services rendered
as a director of NTIC, although this retainer will increase to $20,000 effective as of January 1, 2018. The annual retainer is
paid quarterly. NTIC’s Chairman of the Board receives an additional annual retainer of $15,000, the Chair of the Audit Committee
receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000 and other members of the Audit Committee received an additional annual retainer
of $4,000. Each non-employee director also receives $1,000 for each Board and strategy review meeting attended and $1,000 for each
Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meeting attended. No director, however,
will earn more than $1,000 per day in Board, Board committee and strategy review meeting fees. Any director that is an employee
of NTIC does not receive any retainer or Board or Committee meeting fees.


 


Stock Options


 


Each non-employee director is automatically granted a ten-year non-qualified option to
purchase 4,000 shares of NTIC common stock in consideration for their services as directors of NTIC and the Chairman of the Board
is automatically granted an additional ten-year non-qualified option to purchase 2,000 shares of NTIC common stock in consideration
for his services as Chairman on the first day of each fiscal year. Each non-employee directors who is elected or appointed to the
Board following the first day of the fiscal year receives an automatic grant of an option to purchase a pro rata portion of 4,000
shares of NTIC common stock calculated by dividing the number of months remaining in the fiscal year at the time of election or
appointment divided by 12, which options are automatically granted at the time of the new director’s election or appointment.
Each automatically granted option becomes exercisable, in full on the one-year anniversary of the date of its grant. The exercise
price of such option is equal to the fair market value of a share of NTIC common stock on the date of grant. All such options are
granted under the Northern Technologies International Corporation Amended and Restated 2007 Stock Incentive Plan.


 


Reimbursement of Expenses


 


All directors of NTIC are reimbursed for travel expenses for attending meetings and other
miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses incurred in performing their Board functions.
#### Jermaine N. TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. BOWLES, Dental Hygienist, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-7026

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Jermaine N. Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Virginia prisoner, Jermaine N. Turner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing, after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012) review, Turner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action alleging Defendant Dr. Bowles, a dental hygienist at Lawrenceville Correctional Center, violated his constitutional rights. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Turner v. Bowles,*No. 1:17-cv-00763-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. filed July 19, 2017 *&*entered July 20, 2017). 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*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00949

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.R.

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA02916

Honorable Richard Garcia, Associate Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating

Appellant Diana H.’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are assessed against

Appellant Diana H.

SIGNED May 15, 2019.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
#### IN RE: Manoj Kumar JHA, Petitioner.

No. 17-2210

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

Manoj Kumar Jha, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Manoj Kumar Jha petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court judge to recuse herself from Jha’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding. He also filed a motion to vacate this court’s opinion affirming his criminal judgment in *United States v. Jha,*613 Fed.Appx. 212 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-4717). We conclude that Jha is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

Because Jha appears dissatisfied with the district court judge’s rulings in his cases, and he has not established any extrajudicial bias, recusal is not warranted. *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that nature of alleged bias must be personal and not arising out of litigation). Nor may mandamus be used as a substitute for appeal. *Id.*at 826; *see In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Jha’s petition for a writ of mandamus and we deny his motion to vacate this court’s opinion affirming his criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this *128court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001007020
<NAME> INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           9,517
<SECURITIES>                                       391
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                       194
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,754
<PP&E>                                           3,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,401
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,390
<SALES>                                         22,047
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,047
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,954
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,253
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF PENSKE MOTORSPORTS, INC. AS
OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,368
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,217
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,893
<PP&E>                                         282,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 323,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,805
<BONDS>                                         50,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                     196,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   323,824
<SALES>                                          4,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,853
<CGS>                                            3,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (356)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,805)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,884)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,921)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,921)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1



                        FORM OF COMMON STOCK CERTIFICATE

[LOGO]
NUMBER
SHARES
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
CUSIP 91729G 10 3

THIS CERTIFIES THAT ___________________________  is the owner of Fully
Paid and Non-assessable Common Stock, $.0001 Par Value of US Dataworks, Inc.
transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or
by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly
endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer
Agent.

In Witness Witness, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by
the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with
the facsimile seal of the Corporation.

Dated:

[Richard Shapiro]
SECRETARY

[SEAL]

[Charles E. Ramey]
PRESIDENT

COUNTERSIGNED:
CORPORATE STOCK TRANSFER, INC.
3200 Cherry Drive South, Suite 430, Denver, CO  80209
BY:_____________________
Transfer Agent and Registrar Authorized Officer


<PAGE>


US Dataworks, Inc.
Corporate Stock Transfer, Inc.
Transfer Fee: Required

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
Certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:

TEN COM- as tenants in common
TEN ENT- as tenants by the entireties
JT TEN- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- _______________ Custodian ______________
(Cust) (Minor)
under Uniform Gift to Minors Act ________
(State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.

For Value Received ___________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE
INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
_________________________________________
Please print or type name and address of assignee
of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do
hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint ________________
Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named
Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated ______________________ 20__________________

Signature Guaranteed:
X_________________________
X_________________________

THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAMES AS WRITTEN UPON
THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR
ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. THE SIGNATURES MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN
ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan
Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE
GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM.
Siebel Systems, Inc. Amended 2005 ExecutiveBonus Plan
Purpose:

The terms of the Amended 2005 Executive Bonus Plan (the "Plan") have beenestablished to reward the Company's executives and other senior management for assisting the Company in achievingits operational goals through exemplary performance.  As further described below, under the Plan, the overall bonuspool for cash bonuses, if any, will be funded based on the achievement of a specified corporate goal, and the awardingof individual cash bonuses, if any, will be made based on a review of individual performance, which is determined at thediscretion of the Compensation Committee.
**Determination of 2005 Cash Bonuses:**
The overall bonus pool for potential cash bonuses under the Plan (the "BonusPool") is based on the Company's targeted 2005 non-GAAP operating income as approved by the CompensationCommittee (the "Target Operating Income").  The Bonus Pool will range from 33% to a maximum of 150% ofthe target bonus pool as approved by the Compensation Committee depending on the extent to which the Company'sactual 2005 non-GAAP operating income meets, exceeds or falls short of the Target Operating Income.  

The individual target bonus levels for participants in the Plan will be set forth as a percentage ofbase salary.  The actual bonuses payable to participants will be paid out of the Bonus Pool based on the evaluation ofperformance objectives which reflect, among other things, the participant's contribution to Company and business unitperformance, as appropriate, demonstration of the Company's core values and exceptional leadership, or on othercriteria to be determined by management and approved by the Compensation Committee.  

The Company's Board of Directors and Compensation Committee reserve the right to modifythese performance goals and objectives at any time or to grant bonuses to participants even if the performance goalsand objectives are not met.
October 1, 2012

No. 11-1491.

#### Sibley *v.*Supreme Court of the United States et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. § 2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.”

The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06298]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel; Purity Specifications, Storage and Distribution of 
Medications Development (8961).
    Date: May 2, 2022.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Trinh T. Tran, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Extramural Policy and Review, Division of Extramural 
Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North 
Stonestreet Avenue, MSC 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-5843, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f18583989f99df8583909fb19f9899df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b4f49525553154f495a557b555253155c544d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 21, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-06298 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofSeptember 1, 2014, by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial MortgageSecurities Corp., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asMaster Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, asSenior Trust Advisor with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2014-C23 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

ExecutiveVice President

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Dear Sir or Madam,

The requested relief from the applicable portions of 14 C.F.R. Part 137 you mentioned were already submitted in the original exemption submitted on March 11, 2016 on pages 5, 16, 24 and 25, Docket No.

FAA

– 2016

– 4931. We are well aware of the requirements of persons seeking either a private or commercial agricultural aircraft operation and have advised our clients accordingly of the procedures and regulations.

Further, there are no part 107 regulations to seek relief from, as t his aircraft with full payload exceeds

the 55lb limit and thus falls under Tier 3 operations requiring a Section 333 approval as previously noted in my September 12, 2016 email. Page 7 of the original exemption describes the weight characteristics

of the system and delineates some of the safety features. Other key operational capabilities are also listed on pages 4 and 5.

The only verbiage within the original exemption that is no longer applicable is the 200 foot vice 400 foot limitation, because the exemption has been in queue for so long, that the 200 foot limitation no longer applies under Section 333 exemptions or under Part 107.

Attached is the original Petition for Exemption taken for action by the FAA on March 11, 2016 already containing the requested relief of applicable portions of part 137 as well as why granting the request is in the public interest, and “the reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at l east equal to that provided by the rules

under 14 C.F.R. § 11.81.

Because the 200 foot AGL limitation no longer applies, I will submit a change to that particular portion and submit it to the docket and supply you with that tracking number.

As an owner of a UAS consulting company that takes pride in providing professional services to our clients with emphasis on safe integration, it is unsatisfactory that it has been over 6 months since this petition has been submitted, and the response to my inqui ry requests information that was already submitted in the original Petition.

Sincerely, Kelly Neubecker, CEO Uasolutions Group, Inc.