alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10wxjy



 





Exhibit 10(j)

Woodward Governor Company

Summary of Non-Employee Director Meeting Fees and Compensation


Beginning in fiscal year 2005, Directors of the Company who are not regular worker members of the
Company are to be compensated as follows:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Monthly retainer
	 	$	2,000	 
	Each Board meeting attended (full member scheduled with agenda)
	 	 	1,500	 
	Each committee meeting attended:
	 	 	 	 
	Chairman
	 	 	2,500	 
	Non-chairmen
	 	 	1,500	 
	Lead director – each outside director meeting
	 	 	2,500	 
	Audit committee chairman – monthly retainer
	 	 	750	 
	Single issue telephonic meetings:
	 	 	 	 
	Chairman
	 	 	1,000	 
	Non-chairmen
	 	 	500
	 






In addition, options will be awarded in January 2005 for the purchase of 1,500 shares of Woodward
common stock at the market price on the date of grant, vesting after one year.
# C_2013123EN.01001901.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/19

---

Action brought on 19 February 2013 — Cadbury Holdings/OHIM — Société des produits Nestlé (Shape of a four-finger chocolate bar)

(Case T-112/13)

2013/C 123/32

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cadbury Holdings Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Mitcheson, Barrister, P. Walsh and S. Dunstan, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 513/2011-2 dated 11 December 2012, except insofar as the Board of Appeal determined that the mark is devoid of inherent distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 513/2011-2 dated 11 December 2012, except insofar as the Board of Appeal determined that the mark is devoid of inherent distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b); and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of this application and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of this application and order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The three-dimensional mark representing a shape of a four-finger chocolate bar for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 2 632 529

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e)(ii) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e)(ii) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 31  SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION  CERTIFICATION  I, Kenneth J. Eaken, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Lexon Technologies, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006;  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: December 18, 2006 /S/Kenneth J. Eaken Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer
#### IN THE MATTER OF JERRY N. NEAL.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 808)

(405 SE2d 875)

Decided May 23, 1991.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Cynthia C. Hinrichs, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

Respondent Jerry N. Neal has petitioned for voluntary discipline. His petition is based upon his admissions of fact and conduct in violation of Standard 44 of State Bar Rule 4-102.

Respondent, in his petition, requests that this Court accept his request for voluntary discipline in the form of a Review Panel Reprimand.

Based upon the record and the recommendation of the Review Panel of the State Bar Disciplinary Board, it is directed that respondent receive a Review Panel reprimand.

*All the Justices concur.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

December 28, 2011 

t1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143735 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143735 

 COA: 302805 

Saginaw CC: 06-027887-FH 

ARTHUR JAMES BRIDGES, Jr., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 6, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
# C_2015389EN.01005501.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/55

---

Order of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — Société européenne des chaux et liants v ECHA

(Case T-540/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - REACH - Imposition of an administrative charge for an error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Language regime - Time-limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 389/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Société européenne des chaux et liants (Bourgoin-Jallieu, France) (represented by: J. Dezarnaud, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and C. Schultheiss, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Decision SME (2013) 1665 of the ECHA of 21 May 2013, in so far as it imposes an administrative charge on the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Société européenne des chaux et liants to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Société européenne des chaux et liants to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

1

---
# C_2016027EN.01004001.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Kenzo v OHIM — Tsujimoto (KENZO ESTATE)

(Case T-528/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark KENZO ESTATE - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial rejection of the opposition))

(2016/C 027/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, W. von der Osten-Sacken and M. Ring, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr K. Tsujimoto.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of the goods in Classes 29 to 31 covered by the international registration applied for; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 July 2013 (Case R 1363/2012-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of the goods in Classes 29 to 31 covered by the international registration applied for;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Kenzo in the course of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Kenzo in the course of the present proceedings;

| 3. | Orders OHIM and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to bear the costs which each of them has respectively incurred in the course of the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to bear the costs which each of them has respectively incurred in the course of the present proceedings;

| 4. | Orders Mr K. Tsujimoto to bear his costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Kenzo for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr K. Tsujimoto to bear his costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Kenzo for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---
# C_2014052EN.01005302.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/53

---

Action brought on 9 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-118/13)

2014/C 52/103

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Career Development Report relating to the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and annulment of the merit points awarded during the 2003 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Career Development Report (CDR) of the applicant for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Career Development Report (CDR) of the applicant for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

| — | in the alternative, annul the applicant’s merit points from the 2003 promotion exercise since they are not at the level of the average points awarded to staff of his grade during the same exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the applicant’s merit points from the 2003 promotion exercise since they are not at the level of the average points awarded to staff of his grade during the same exercise;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
```
**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**

I,  Raymond N.  Joeckel,  the  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of Eagle
Exploration Company,  (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)  the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
     March 31, 2005 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
     Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 29, 2005
                                          /s/Raymond N. Joeckel
                                          Name: Raymond N. Joeckel
                                          Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
```
No. 10-98.

#### John D. Ashcroft, Petitioner v. Abdullah al-Kidd.

562 U.S. 980, 131 S. Ct. 415,

178 L. Ed. 2d 321,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8303.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 580 F.3d 949.
#### EVUNP Holdings LLC et al., Respondents, v Jacob Frydman et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[62 NYS3d 263]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 20, 2016, in plaintiffs’ favor in the total sum of $29,658.43, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 2, 2015, which fixed the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to plaintiffs as $28,033.99, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the award vacated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a hearing on the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs, in conformance with this Court’s decision.

On a prior appeal, this Court affirmed an order which, to the extent appealed from, awarded plaintiffs their costs in replying to, and moving to strike, defendants’ defective motions (138 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2016]). At that time, this Court declined to consider defendants’ challenge to the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ fees, which had been awarded in a subsequent order, finding that “[w]hether the sum the court awarded was proper is not before us on this appeal” *{id.*at 607). We now determine the issue. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, defendants’ appeal from the ensuing judgment, after issuance of the underlying *559order, is proper *(see*CPLR 5501 [a]; *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).

“ [T]he [trial] court . . . has the authority and responsibility to determine that the claim for fees is reasonable” *(Solow Mgt. Corp. v Tanger,*19 AD3d 225, 226 [1st Dept 2005]). “[T]he burden of showing the ‘reasonableness’ of the fee lies upon the claimant” *(Matter of Karp [Cooper],*145 AD2d 208, 216 [1st Dept 1989], citing *Matter of Potts,*213 App Div 59, 61 [4th Dept 1925], *affd*241 NY 593 [1925]).

Plaintiffs’ failure to address any of the *Matter of Freeman*(34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]) factors used to determine the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, other than time and labor, which was supported by invoices with block-billed entries, some of which contained redactions, warrants remand for a hearing *(see S.T.A. Parking Corp. v Lancer Ins. Co.,*128 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2015]; *135 E. 57th St., LLC v 57th St. Day Spa, LLC,*126 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kern, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1997 10-Q
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the March 31, 1997 Form 10-Q, 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,513
<PP&E>                                          50,814
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,407
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,910
<BONDS>                                          4,386
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        678
<COMMON>                                           893
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,026
<SALES>                                         15,935 <F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,186 <F1>
<CGS>                                           10,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,690
<INCOME-TAX>                                       864
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                826
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       826
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.01
<FN>
<F1> SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES INCLUDE $1,422 MILLION OF EXCISE AND
STATE GASOLINE TAXES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Distribution to celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month 

/ Published May 13, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month takes place in May. It celebrates the culture, traditions and history of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States. The month of May was chosen to commemorate the immigration of the first Japanese to the United States on May 7, 1843, and to mark the anniversary of the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10, 1869. The majority of the workers who laid the tracks were Chinese immigrants.
In June 1977, the United States House of Representatives proclaimed the first ten days of May as Asian-Pacific Heritage Week. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate a month later. President Jimmy Carter signed a resolution for the celebration on October 5, 1978. 

In 1990, George H.W. Bush signed a bill passed by Congress to extend Asian-American Heritage Week to a month. May was officially designated as Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month two years later. On May 1, 2009 President Obama issued Presidential Proclamation which recalls the challenges faced by Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and celebrates their great and significant contributions to our society. 

DLA Distribution will be celebrating the culture, traditions and history of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders with a program being held on Thursday, May 26, 2016. We will have the great pleasure of having a speaker from the Pennsylvania Governor’s office. Tiffany Chang Lawson, the Executive Director of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs, provides strategic development for the Commission which is comprised of 30 Commissioners that have been appointed by Governor Wolf from across Pennsylvania. 

The Commission is the state’s advocate agency for the diverse Asian Pacific American communities across the Commonwealth and Ms. Lawson travels across Pennsylvania to meet with community organizations, local, state and federal agencies. 

Please plan to join us in the Building 54 auditorium on Thursday, May 26 from 0930-1030 to welcome Ms. Lawson as she speaks to us about the culture, traditions and history of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States.