alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w13






Exhibit 10. 13




Summary of Director Compensation Plan

Effective as of January 1, 2010




     In an effort to attract and retain well-qualified directors, the Board of Directors (the
“Board”) of GeoVax Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) has approved a plan of compensation for the Company’s
non-employee directors (the “Plan”). A summary of the material terms of the Plan is as follows:



Directors





	 	•	 	Each non-employee director shall receive an annual cash retainer of $5,000, payable in
four quarterly installments, for service as a member (non-Chairperson) of the Audit
Committee.
	 
	 	•	 	Each non-employee director shall receive an annual cash retainer of $3,300, payable in
four quarterly installments, for service as a member (non-Chairperson) of the Compensation
Committee.
	 
	 	•	 	Each non-employee director shall receive the following meeting attendance (as a
non-Chairperson) fees: $3,000 per Board meeting attended in person (or $1,500 per Board
meeting attended telephonically) and $500 per Committee meeting attended in person (or $400
per Committee meeting attended telephonically).
	 
	 	•	 	Each non-employee director shall receive a grant of options to purchase 1,320,000 shares
of the Company’s common stock on the date that each non-employee director is first elected
or appointed to the Board. The Board, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee
based on such committee’s review of the director compensation structure of similar
companies, shall determine an annual stock option grant to non-employee directors.





Non-employee Chairperson of the Board





	 	•	 	A non-employee Chairperson of the Board shall receive an annual cash retainer of
$30,000, payable in four quarterly installments, and is not entitled to any additional
meeting attendance fees.





Chairpersons of Committees of the Board





	 	•	 	The Audit Committee Chairperson shall receive an annual cash retainer of $9,000 per
year, payable in four quarterly installments, for his/her service in such capacity.
	 
	 	•	 	The Compensation Committee Chairperson shall receive an annual cash retainer of $6,000
per year, payable in four quarterly installments, for his/her service in such capacity.
	 
	 	•	 	Each Committee Chairperson shall receive $1,000 per Committee meeting chaired in person
(or $750 per Committee meeting chaired telephonically).





Reimbursement of Expenses





	 	•	 	All reasonable expenses incurred by non-employee directors in their capacity as such shall
be reimbursed by the Company.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350


(SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In
connection with the Annual Report of, Cetrone Energy Company (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Cetrone,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 Company.





Dated:  March
31, 2009





By:  /s/
Michael Cetrone


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


Michael
Cetrone, President,


Chief
Executive Officer,


Chief
Financial Officer and Director








1
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Dividend Capital Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify
with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
that:

|                        |  |                                                                 
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | /s/ Evan H. ZuckerEvan H. Zucker Chief Executive Officer        
|                        |  |                                                                 
|                        |  |                                                                 
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | /s/ James R. MulvihillJames R. Mulvihill Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
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





In connection with the accompanying annual report of Advanced Medical Isotope Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the "Report"), the undersigned, James C. Katzaroff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and L. Bruce Jolliff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date: April 15, 2015/s/ James C. KatzaroffName: James C. KatzaroffTitle: Chief Executive Officer





/s/ L. Bruce JolliffName: L. Bruce JolliffTitle: Chief Financial Officer
#### Joe MEYER v. CITY OF EUFAULA, OKLAHOMA, a Municipal Corporation, et al.

No. 2512.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 15, 1942.

Banker & Bonds, of Muskogee, Okl., and George W. Polk, of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.

E. C. Hopper, Jr., of Eufaula, Okl., and A. M. Frazier, of Dallas, Tex., for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on court’s own motion on ground that appeal was taken from a non-appealable order.
EXHIBIT 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the Annual Report of Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C Section 1350, that, to the best of the officers 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 Company.  /s/Douglas Hague Douglas Hague, Chief Executive and Financial Officer March 29, 2010
September 4, 2015

Mr. Trent Spofford

STX Aerials

4238 Snowmass

Corpus Christi, TX 78413

Dear Mr. Spofford :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ 45.23(b), 21 sub H, 61, 91, 91.103(b)(2), 91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.405,

91.407, 91.409, 91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why

we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request , posted to the public docket on June 26, 2015, on behalf

of STX Aerials filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2517

, but we are unable to process your

request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
----

----

I Communications

Commission

----

CATALOGUE COMMUN DES VARIÉTÉS DES ESPÈCES AGRICOLES

Troisième complément à la vingt-troisième édition intégrale

(2004/C 111 A/01)

SOMMAIRE

Légende

Liste des espèces agricoles

LÉGENDE

I

1.BETA VULGARIS L.

2.BETA VULGARIS L.

II

9.BROMUS CATHARTICUS VAHL

12.DACTYLIS GLOMERATA L.

13.FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA SCHREBER

14.FESTUCA OVINA L.

15.FESTUCA PRATENSIS HUDSON

16.FESTUCA RUBRA L.

17.LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.

18.LOLIUM PERENNE L.

21.PHLEUM BERTOLONII DC.

22.PHLEUM PRATENSE L.

26.POA PRATENSIS L.

32.LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS L.

33.LUPINUS LUTEUS L.

35.MEDICAGO SATIVA L.

38.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

42.TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE L.

43.TRIFOLIUM REPENS L.

46.VICIA FABA L. (PARTIM)

48.VICIA SATIVA L.

51.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. ACEPHALA (DC.) ALEF. VAR. MEDULLOSA THELL. + VAR. VIRIDIS L.

53.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L. VAR. OLEIFORMIS PERS.

III

57.BRASSICA NAPUS L. (PARTIM)

63.HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.

64.LINUM USITATISSIMUM L.

67.GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL

IV

68.AVENA SATIVA L.

69.HORDEUM VULGARE L.

70.ORYZA SATIVA L.

72.SECALE CEREALE L.

73.SORGHUM BICOLOR (L.) MOENCH

76.× TRITICOSECALE WITTM.

77.TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. EMEND. FIORI ET PAOL.

78.TRITICUM DURUM DESF.

79.TRITICUM SPELTA L.

80.ZEA MAYS L.

V

81.SOLANUM TUBEROSUM L.

----

(1)JO C 46 A du 22.2.2005, p. 1. Catalogue modifié en dernier lieu par le deuxième complément (JO C 104 A du 29.4.2005, p. 1).

(2)JO L 193 du 20.7.2002, p. 1. Directive modifiée en dernier lieu par le règlement (CE) no 1829/2003 du Parlement européen et du Conseil (JO L 268 du 18.10.2003, p. 1).

----
##### 



Exhibit 4.1
 SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE, INC.
 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
FOR
THOMAS FITZGERALD
 Agreement
 Grant of Option 10,000
 Exercise Schedule
 Method of Exercise
 Method of Payment




---



##### 



Termination of Option
   2




---



##### 



Stock Dividend or Reorganization
      3




---



##### 



Transferability
 No Rights of Stockholders
 No Right to Employment
 Law Governing
 Notices
 Tax Consequences
 Exercise of Option
 4




---



##### 



Disposition of Stock
  COMPANY:SinoFresh Healthcare, Inc., a Florida corporationBy:Name: Charles FustTitle: Chairman and CEO
  OPTIONEE:Name: [Thomas Fitzgerald]
 5
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard E. FRENCH, Appellant.

No. ED 106414

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: May 7, 2019

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Casey Allen Taylor, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Justin Andrew Moody, Assistant Attorney General, 221 West High St., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

*765Richard E. French ("Defendant") appeals from the trial court's judgment convicting him of burglary in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.160, RSMo 2000.1 Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as amended.
| (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      registrant. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November      6, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Ronald C. Schmeiser                  |
|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                                   |   | Ronald      C. Schmeiser                 |
|                                   |   | President,      Chief Executive          |
|                                   |   | Officer      and Chief Financial Officer |

----
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 15245B

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 5953

Mr. Mark E. McKinno n

Dentons US LLP

Counsel for The Los Angeles Rams, LLC

1676 International Drive, Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Dear Mr. McKinnon :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated August 2, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of The Los Angeles Rams, LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment

to your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5),

61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. You requested an amendment to change the

company name from The Saint Louis Rams, LLC to The Los Angeles Rams, LLC

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safet y that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and a ny delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 15245A

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained2

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add th is amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, The Los Angeles Rams, LLC is hereafter referred to as the

operator. All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 15245A remain in

effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on March 31, 2018 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Si ncerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raheem Ford, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 677]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting him of rob*589bery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed upon the conviction of grand larceny in the second degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

The hearing court properly found that there was probable cause for the police to arrest the defendant *(see, People v Alston,*279 AD2d 583 [decided herewith]).

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences. Prior to the commencement of voir dire, his trial counsel informed the court, in the defendant’s presence, that he had discussed the matter with the defendant and that the defendant had agreed to waive this right *(see, People v Reynoso,*231 AD2d 592; *People v Smallwood,*225 AD2d 713; *People v Ming Yuen,*222 AD2d 613; *People v Stokes,*216 AD2d 337). The fact that the defendant expressed a choice through trial counsel does not render the waiver invalid *(see, People v Underwood,*201 AD2d 597). There is no requirement that the trial court inquire of the defendant directly *(see, People v Spotford,*85 NY2d 593, 598).

As the People correctly concede, the defendant should not have been sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender upon his conviction of grand larceny in the second degree since this offense is not defined as a violent felony *(see,*Penal Law § 70.08 [1] [a]; § 70.02; *People v Hichez,*240 AD2d 678; *People v Scruggs,*201 AD2d 514). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, James A. Krantz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd.
 
 
 
 Date: November 6, 2009
/s/ James A. KrantzBy: James A. KrantzExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
      connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the
      quarter ended May 31, 2006 (the “Report”) by PaperFree Medical Solutions, Inc.,
      the undersigned hereby certifies that:




1.
      The
      Report complies in all material respects 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.






By: /s/
      William L Sklar




Date
                October 5, 2006


Chief
      Executive Officer
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dominique A. LINDSEY, Appellant.

WD 81742

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: May 28, 2019

Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia for appellant.

Dora Fichter, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, C.J., and Alok Ahuja and Cynthia L. Martin, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Dominique Lindsey was convicted of second-degree murder and armed criminal action, in violation of §§ 565.021 and 571.015, RSMo. The court sentenced Lindsey to twenty years' imprisonment for second-degree murder and a concurrent term of three years' imprisonment for armed criminal action. Lindsey appeals. He argues that the State's evidence was insufficient because it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not murder the victim under the influence of sudden passion. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40787

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAMUEL UCLES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for Southern the District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-1940-1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel Ucles has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ucles has filed a response. With respect to

Ucles’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, such claims generally “cannot

be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district

court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the

allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-40787 Document: 00511149912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
No. 09-40787

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). With respect to Ucles’s

remaining claims, our independent review of the record, the response, and

counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 09-40787 Document: 00511149912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,478]


Metaldyne, Whitsett, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 4, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Metaldyne, 
Whitsett, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6538 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P