alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-17.htm




EXHIBIT 10.17

 

Summary of Compensation Arrangements with Executive Officers







The following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of RPC, Inc. (the “Company”) and the Company’s other most highly compensated executive officers (the “Named Executive Officers”).





This document is intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any of the Named Executive Officers.





Base Salaries





The annual base salaries for the Company’s Named Executive Officers are reviewed and may be adjusted from time to time in the discretion of the Company’s Compensation Committee.





Bonuses





All of the Named Executive Officers are eligible for annual cash bonuses under the Company’s Performance-Based Incentive Cash Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).





The Company’s executive officers are also eligible for annual cash bonuses as determined by the Compensation Committee in its discretion.





Stock Options and Other Equity Awards





The Named Executive Officers are eligible to receive options and restricted stock under the Company’s stock incentive plan, in such amounts and with such terms and conditions as determined by the Committee at the time of grant.

 

Supplemental Retirement Plan





Salary and Bonus Deferrals





All of the Named Executive Officers are eligible to participate in the Company’s Supplemental Retirement Plan (“Plan”).





The Plan allows participants to defer up to 50% of base salary and up to 100% of annual bonus, subject to other terms and conditions set forth in the Plan.










 



1







 



 

Automobile Usage





The Company provides an automobile or an automobile allowance to Messrs. Hubbell and Palmer.





Other Benefits





The Named Executive Officers are eligible to participate in the Company’s regular employee benefit programs, including the 401(k) plan with Company match, group life insurance, group medical and dental coverage and other group benefit plans.  All of the Named Executives are eligible for the Retirement Income Plan that was
frozen in March 2002.  See Supplemental Retirement Plan above for further discussion.





All of the Named Executive Officers are also executive officers of Marine Products Corporation (“MPC”) and receive compensation from that company.  Disclosure regarding such compensation can be found in MPC’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

2
**EXHIBIT 32**
**CERTIFICATION**
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifiesin his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) that the QuarterlyReport of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition of the Company at the end of such period and results of operations of the Company forsuch period.    Date:July 13, 2005 By: /s/ Donald L. Denney       Donald L. Denney   President and Chief Executive Officer   (Principal Executive Officer)    Date:July 13, 2005 And: /s/ William C. Kurtz       William C. Kurtz   Senior Vice President and Treasurer   (Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5663 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5663

 To penalize States that prohibit oil and gas exploration within their 
  borders by denying them the use of any oil or natural gas produced 
                        domestically elsewhere.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2006

 Mr. Gohmert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To penalize States that prohibit oil and gas exploration within their 
  borders by denying them the use of any oil or natural gas produced 
                        domestically elsewhere.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STATE HYPOCRISY REFORM.

    (a) Any State that does not allow the exploration or the production 
of oil or gas within that State's boundaries or within the contiguous 
coastal zones of that State is prohibited from receiving oil or gas 
produced in any other State in the United States or its contiguous 
coastal zone.
    (b) As used in this section the term ``State'' means an entity that 
is a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, 
Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or any territory or 
possession of the United States, an Indian tribe, or a unit of local 
government of that entity.
                                 <all>
```
#### Coronet Capital Company, Plaintiff, v Rosalind T. Spodek et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Laurence J. Gold, Nonparty Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 870]

In an action, *inter alia,*to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Rosalind T. Spodek and J. Leonard Spodek appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated November 15, 1999, which denied their motion for reargument and renewal of their prior motion which was denied by an order of the same court, dated March 9, 1999.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied renewal is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the nonparty respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from so much of the order as denied renewal is dismissed as academic in light of our determination in *Coronet*
      *603
      *Capital Co. v Spodek*(279 AD2d 600 [decided herewith]). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6284]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF09-261-000]


Lafarge Midwest, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Notice of Self-
Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility

March 17, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 11, 2009, Lafarge Midwest, Inc., of 1435 
Ford Avenue, Alpena, MI 49707 filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) a notice of self-certification of a facility as 
a qualifying cogeneration facility, pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(a) of 
the Commission's regulations.
    The facility produces cement as its primary activity. Waste heat 
from this process is used to create steam, which serves as the primary 
energy source for the production of electricity. Five turbines are 
driven by the steam; each turbine is linked to a generator. The 
combined nameplate capacity of the cogeneration facility is 48.75 MW.
    Excess power results from the aforesaid cogeneration process will 
be sold to Alpena Power Company, which is interconnected with the 
Qualifying Facility.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding 
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification 
provides notice that the entity making the filing has determined the 
Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any 
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so 
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93d5d6c1d0dcfdfffafdf6c0e6e3e3fce1e7d3f5f6e1f0bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9fffcebfaf6d7d5d0d7dceaccc9c9d6cbcdf9dfdccbda97ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6284 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.2**

*I, JohnF. Coger, certify that:*

*6.**     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Community Valley Bancorp (the “registrant”);*

*7.**     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;*

*8.**     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;*

*9.**     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:*

*a)**      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;*

*b)**      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and*

*c)**      Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting ;and*

*10.**  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors:*

*a)**      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and*

*b)**      Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.*
| *Date:* | * May 9, 2007*                                | * * | *By* | * /s/ John  F. Coger* | * * |
|---------|----------------------------------------------------|----------|------|----------------------------|----------|
|    | Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer |
|    | and Chief  Operating Officer                       |

 

----
EX-34.4
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
350 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90071
Telephone (213) 356 6000
Facsimile (813) 637 4444
www.pwc.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors
Newport Management Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that Newport Management Corporation (the Company) complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(xi) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the pools of loans which Aurora Loan
Services, LLC acted as the servicer pursuant to the applicable transaction
agreements, underlying publicly and/or privately-issued residential
mortgage-backed securities that were issued on or after January 1, 2006, on
which escrow payments were disbursed in 2008 (the Platform), as of December 31,
2008 and for the year then ended. The Company has determined that the remainder
of the servicing criteria is not applicable to the activities it performs with
respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Schedule
A to management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions
and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
February 26, 2009
STATE of North Carolina v. Kendrick Louis ROBINSON

No. 451P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, Attorney at Law, For Robinson, Kendrick Louis.

David J. Adinolfi, II, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Benjamin O. Zellinger, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of December 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Davis, J. recused
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11466-11467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5750]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0983; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-14]


Modification of Class D Airspace; MacDill AFB, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule, confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule published in the Federal Register (73 FR 60622) that modifies 
Class D Airspace at MacDill AFB, FL to reflect

[[Page 11467]]

the times when the controlled airspace is effective due to the fact 
that MacDill AFB Air Traffic Control Tower no longer operates on a full 
time basis.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 15, 2009. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 
Group, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30320; Telephone (404) 305-5610, Fax 404-305-5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on October 14, 2008 (73 FR 60622), 
Docket No. FAA-2008-0983; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-14. The FAA uses 
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule 
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. 
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
January 15, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this 
notice confirms that effective date.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 25, 2009.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
 [FR Doc. E9-5750 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 327 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 327

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 26, 2023.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2811) to provide for a responsible increase 
to the debt ceiling, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees and the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their 
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider 
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 39) disapproving the rule submitted 
by the Department of Commerce relating to ``Procedures Covering Suspension of 
Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential 
Proclamation 10414''. All points of order against consideration of the joint 
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective 
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Casey A. ELLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81435

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: March 12, 2019

Jedd C. Schneider, Columbia for appellant.

Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Division Three: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presising Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

Casey Ellis appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after he pled guilty to second-degree murder, armed criminal action, first-degree burglary, and attempted possession of a controlled substance. Ellis contends the motion court clearly erred in rejecting the claim that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the 85% minimum term on the second-degree murder charge. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)
1

Nesky, Anthony

To: Nesky, Anthony

Subject: FW: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-088 requesting a hearing in Chadron NE

From: Juli Ames‐Curtis [mailto:mtsagemassage@yahoo.com]  

Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 11:50 PM

To: Rosencrantz, Ingrid

Subject: Docket ID Number EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2012‐088 requesting a hearing in Chadron NE

I have already sent a letter to your office supporting the proposed water protection rules. (Docket ID Number EPA-HQOAR-2012-088). 

We are told there will be a hearing in Casper, WY concerning this matter. The problem is that the nearest public hearing 

on the rules is far from a central location for the in-situ uranium mines operating and proposed in the SD/WY/NE 

are. There is a uranium mine in NW Nebraska, as well as the proposed mine in Fall River and Custer Counties. As a citizen 

of Custer, SD who lives close to the proposed Dewey-Burdock, SD mine I request a public hearing in Chadron, NE, just 

south of the South Dakota border. I am also a member of Dakota Rural Action and our group supports this request for a 

hearing in Chadron, NE. 

Thank you for your time and consideration, 

Juli Ames-Curtis 

Paha Sapa Healing Arts 

970-391-9921 

pahasapaha@gmail.com