alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex109.htm


    Exhibit
10.9


     

    OUTSIDE
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PACKAGE

     

     

    Effective
January 1, 2010, CompuCredit Corporation (the “Company”) will pay each outside
director who is independent in accordance with the NASDAQ and SEC rules
governing director independence (an “Eligible Director”) the following for
service to the Company:

     

    
      	
              Annual
      Cash Retainer

            	 
      	
              $

            	
              50,000

            	 
      
	
              Attendance
      Fee for Each Board Meeting (including telephonic
    attendance)

            	 
      	
              $

            	
              2,500

            	 
      
	
              Attendance
      Fee for Each Committee Meeting (including telephonic
      attendance)

            	 
      	
              $

            	
              1,000

            	 
      


    

     

    In
addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an additional annual
fee of $25,000. The Chairman of each of the Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee and the Compensation Committee will receive an additional annual fee
of $5,000.

     

    Each
Eligible Director also will receive an annual restricted stock award
of 18,000 shares. The restricted stock award will vest in two equal annual
installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date.

     

    The
Company will also reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses that
are incurred in connection with board and committee meetings.
Romero GRAYSON, Appellant, v. THORNE & SON ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY, Respondent.

WD 80776

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: March 20, 2018

Zachary A. Kolich, for Appellant.

Daniel J. Lobdell, for Respondent.

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Romero M. Grayson, an employee of Thorne & Son Asphalt Paving Company, appeals the denial of his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Grayson injured his right shoulder following an incident with a fellow coworker, the facts of which were disputed by the parties. The Administrative Law Judge denied Grayson's claim finding that the injury did not arise in the course of his employment. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed, as does this Court. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-156392on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-111412 on Form S-3of our report relating to the consolidated financial statements of GeneralMaritime Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) dated March 1, 2010,March 22, 2010 as to the effects of the restatement discussed in Note 1,and our report relating to the effectiveness of the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting, dated March 1, 2010, appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31,2009.

 

/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP

New York, NY

March 22, 2010

 

----
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Michael DONOVAN, Appellant.

No. ED 106382

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: February 13, 2019

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Jedd C. Schneider, 1000 West Nifong Blvd., Building 7, Suite 1000, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

*696James Donovan appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for endangering a correctional employee and damaging jail property. There was no clear, evident or obvious error, nor grounds to believe a manifest injustice occurred, and plain error review is not warranted. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05196**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05196\05196_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05196\05196_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

05196\Certification Statement Plant ID 05196.pdf Plant certification statement x 05196\05196_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05196\05196_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
|Exhibit
  32.2
|--------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
      906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
  2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in her capacity as
Chief Financial Officer of Belrose Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on
her knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the
      results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                              
|   



|Date: May 10,
2006
|------------------



| | /s/ Michelle A. GreenMichelle A. GreenChief Financial
      Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Subject: Notice of Communication:

(Docket: DOT-OST-2015-0075)

Date: June 4, 2015

From: Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor

To: Chief, Dockets

On March 4, 2015, Access Services (“Access”), an Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) complementary paratransit provider for Los Angeles County, submitted a petition 

for rulemaking to the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT” or “the Department”) to 

request an amendment to DOT’s regulations implementing the ADA with respect to 

paratransit fares at 49 C.F.R. § 37.131(c). Those regulations require that the fare for a 

trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user shall not exceed twice the fare that would 

be charged to an individual paying full fare on a comparable fixed-route trip. On June 3, 

2015, Department staff met with officials from Access, who provided an update on its 

recent efforts to come into compliance with the ADA regulation that they have petitioned 

the Department to change. Access also received clarification regarding the Department’s 

process for handling a petition for rulemaking. The General Counsel explained that there 

is no statutory or regulatory deadline for responding to a petition, and the Department is 

considering whether to grant, deny, or seek comment on how the Department should 

proceed. Although the Department has not yet decided whether it will grant or deny the 

petition, we are posting this memorandum in the docket in the interest of full disclosure. 

The meeting participants were:

Kathryn Thomson DOT General Counsel

Judy Kaleta DOT, Deputy General Counsel

Jill Laptosky DOT, Office of General Counsel 

Bryna Helfer DOT, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

Carolyn Flowers Federal Transit Administration

John Day Federal Transit Administration

Shelly Verrinder Access Services

Andre Colaiace Access Services

Leonard S. Simon Simon and Company
EXHIBIT 99.2


                       CITIBANK CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST I

                          SERVICING OFFICER CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Citibank (South Dakota),
National Association, as Servicer (the "Bank"), pursuant to a Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated as of May 29, 1991, as Amended and Restated as of
October 5, 2001 (as amended and supplemented through the date hereof, the
"Agreement"), among the Bank, as Seller and Servicer, Citibank (Nevada),
National Association, as Seller, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
(formerly Bankers Trust Company), as Trustee (the "Trustee"), does hereby
certify that:

     1. The Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.
Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings as set
forth in the Agreement.

     2. The undersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly authorized pursuant
to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee.

     3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year
ended December 31, 2004 and of its performance under the Agreement was conducted
under my supervision.

     4. Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
performed in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement
throughout such year and no default in the performance of such obligations has
occurred or is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5 below.

     5. The following is a description of each default in the performance of the
Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known to me to have
been made by the Servicer during the year ended December 31, 2004, which
description sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such default, (ii) the
action taken, if any, by the Servicer to remedy each such default and (iii) the
current status of each such default:

                                      None.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate this
15th day of March, 2005.


                                          /s/ Susan J. Sexton
                                          -------------------
                                          Susan J. Sexton
                                          Servicing Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CERTIFICATION EVALUATION AND CONCURRENCE

Report Request ID: 1407484 Report Code: AMP600 Jan. 29, 2016

Selection Criteria Page 1

User ID: GHG

State County City Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA

EPA

Region

55 009 0005

GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS

Parameter

Classification Parameter Method Duration

CRITERIA 42401

SELECTED OPTIONS

MERGE PDF FILES

AGENCY ROLE

Option Type Option Value

YES

CERTIFYING

DATE CRITERIA

2015

Start Date End Date

2015

Tribal

Code
Jan. 29, 2016 Data Evaluation and Concurrence Report Summary

Page 1 of 1

Certification Year: 2015

Certifying Agency (CA): Wisconsin Dept Of Natural Resources, Air Monitoring Section (1175)

Pollutants in Report:

PQAO

Parameter

Code

Sulfur dioxide 42401

Parameter Name Code

1

Wisconsin Dept Of Natural Resources, Air Monitoring Section 1175

PQAO Code

AQS Site-ID POC

AQS

Recommended

Flag

Cert. Agency

Recommended

Flag Reason for AQS Recommendation

1175 42401 1 55-009-0005 N Y Quality Assurance Project Plan not approved in 10 

years.

Signature of Monitoring Organization Representative: ________________________________________________________

PQAO Name

Summary of 'N' flags for all pollutants:

0 1

PQAOs in Report:

04/26/12

TSA Date

Monitors 

Evaluated

Monitors Recommended for

Concurrence by AQS

Monitors NOT Recommended 

for Concurrence by AQS
Data Evaluation and Concurrence Report for Gaseous Pollutants

Certifying Year 2015

Certifying Agency Code Wisconsin Dept Of Natural Resources, Air Monitoring Section (1175)

Sulfur dioxide (42401) (ppb)

PQAO Name Wisconsin Dept Of Natural Resources, Air Monitoring Section (1175)

QAPP Approval Date 03/01/1988

55-009-0005 SLAMS 1.4 1

Mean

 0.0

Min

 73.8

Max Exceed.

Count

0

Outlier

Count

95

Perc.

Comp.

 1.83

Precision

+/-2.00

Bias

 100

Complete

100

Complete Bias

Y

PQAO Level

Criteria

N

Aqs Rec 

Flag

Y

CA Rec

Flag

S

Epa 

Concur

Submitter Comment Data has been reviewed.

Parameter

1 Y

NPAP Audit Summary: Number of Passed Audits NPAP Bias Criteria Met

.811877

- 3.67

Routine Data One Point Quality Check Annual PE NPAP Concur. Flag

AQS 

Site ID

POC Monitor

Type

Bias QAPP

Appr.

N
Data Evaluation and Concurrence Report for Particulate Matter
Data Concurrence and Evaluation Report for Lead
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 22
- 00210
- CV

__________________ BV CONTINUING CARE CENTER LTD. CO . , Appellant
V.
PHYLLIS HEBERT , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 60th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B
- 208,415

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a health case liability suit, BV Continuing Care Center Ltd. Co

. (BV Continuing Care) objected to the expert report filed o n behalf of the plaintiff, Phyllis
He b ert

. The trial court overruled the objections and signed a n order denying a motion to dismiss on June 15 , 2022. See Tex. Civ

. Pra c
. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 ( a)(9). BV Continuing Care (Appellant) filed a notice of appeal, but it failed to file a brief.
On October 12 , 2022, we notified the parties that the A ppellant ’ s brief had not been filed and that the appeal would be submitted without briefs unless we received2 A ppellant ’ s brief and a motion for extension within ten days, and w e warned
A ppellant that the appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if the appeal was submitted without briefs. On December 1 , 2022, we notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted to the Court on December 22 , 2022, without briefs and without oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the accelerated appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on December 22, 2022 Opinion Delivered J anuary 12, 2023 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
#### Michael Joseph FALLON, Appellant, v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Bill Clinton, Governor; W.H. Sargent, Warden, Cummins Unit; William M. Stricklin, Chairman; Jerry Gasaway; Robert Clark, ADC Publications Review Comm*1305ittee; James L. Mason, Chairman; Morris H. Dreher; David C. McClinton; Hezekiah D. Stewart, Jr., Rev.; Henry Oliver; Mike Gaines; Larry Morris, Arkansas Department of Correction Board, Appellees.

No. 90-2441.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 18, 1990.

Decided Nov. 26, 1990.

Michael Joseph Fallon, appellant pro se.

Appellees were not represented by counsel.

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Michael J. Fallon, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court’s1 judgment dismissing as legally frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action prior to service of process. Concluding that no error of law appears in the record, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s order, which adopted the magistrate’s2 findings and recommendation. *See*8th Cir. Rule 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

. The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Fallon alleged that prison officials violated his first and fourteenth amendment rights when they twice withheld from his mail publications sent to him by the Church of Jesus Christ Christian. Officials notified Fallon that the materials were withheld because they promoted Aryan views, contained racial statements, and degraded other religions, and thereby threatened the good order and security of the institution.

Although prison officials have broad discretion to ban incoming publications that threaten institutional security, *see Thornburgh v. Abbott,*490 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 1881, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989), “allegations of deprivation of first amendment rights must be scrutinized carefully, and even conclusory allegations of constitutional violations may be held sufficient as a matter of pleading to call for the offering of supporting evidence.” *Valiant-Bey v. Morris,*829 F.2d 1441, 1443 (8th Cir.1987). In my view, judicial deference to prison officials’ decisions on these matters does not end all inquiry into the reasonableness of their application of prison regulations. *See Thornburgh,*109 S.Ct. at 1883 n. 15, 1885 (case remanded for examination of validity of regulations as applied to 46 rejected publications).

Therefore, I believe Fallon’s complaint did have an arguable basis in fact and in *1306law, and that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as legally frivolous. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); *see also Travis v. Norris,*805 F.2d 806, 808-09 (8th Cir.1986) (withholding of prisoner’s magazine upheld after review of content). Accordingly, I would reverse and remand this case for further proceedings.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.1

                                NOBLE CORPORATION

                      SPECIAL RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY MEMBERS
                      ON APRIL 28, 2005 AMENDING ARTICLE 54
                         OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

                                 APRIL 28, 2005

      RESOLVED, that the Articles of Association of Noble Corporation are
amended by deleting article 54 in its entirety and substituting therefor the
following:

      "54 Each Director shall be at least 21 years of age. A person shall be
      eligible to be elected a Director of the Company until the annual general
      meeting of the Company next succeeding such person's 72nd birthday, and
      any person serving as a Director on such Director's 72nd birthday shall be
      eligible to complete such Director's term as such. Directors need not be
      Members of the Company."
Order filed September 16, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00084-CR

____________

RICKY MOLINA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1307050

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Patti Sedita. Appellant’s brief 

was originally due April 24, 2014. We granted a total of more than 90 days 

extension of time to file appellant’s brief until August 25, 2014. When we granted 

the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent 

exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed. On August 26, 2014, counsel filed a 
further request for another 60 day-extension of time to file appellant’s brief. 

Counsel did not allege any exceptional circumstances in the request. 

We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.

Accordingly, we order Patti Sedita to file a brief with the clerk of this Court 

within 30 days of the date of this order. If counsel does not timely file appellant’s 

brief as ordered, the Court will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the 

trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the 

brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other 

appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown and Wise.
Kartez HARDIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106138

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: January 8, 2019

Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market St., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Julia E. Neidhardt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Kartez Hardin ("Hardin") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Hardin alleges one *253claim of ineffective assistance of counsel-that trial counsel failed to investigate and call a witness at his jury trial whose testimony would contradict the victim's testimony. Hardin maintains that the contradictory evidence would have sufficiently impeached the victim's testimony so as to alter the outcome of his conviction as trial. Because Hardin fails to overcome the presumption that trial counsel's decision not to call the witness was reasonable trial strategy, we find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Hardin's motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Tony G. Holcombe, Chief
Executive Officer of the Companies, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 results of operations of the
Companies.



|                  |  |  |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Tony G. Holcombe   
|                  |  |  |  | Tony G. Holcombe       
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL


FINANCIAL
OFFICER OF SOLAR ENERGY TOWERS, INC.





In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Solar Energy
Towers, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2009, the undersigned, Thomas E.
Puzzo, President and Chief Executive Officer of Solar Energy Towers, Inc., does
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and





(2) the
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
March 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Solar Energy Towers, Inc.










/s/ Thomas E. Puzzo­ Thomas E.
      PuzzoPresident and Chief
      Executive Officer, Secretary (and principal financial and accounting
      officer)