alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex_339296.htm


EXHIBIT 10.29


 


STOCK YARDS BANCORP, INC.


2015 OMNIBUS EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN


 


Director Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement 


 


Stock Yards Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") grants as of _____________ (the "Grant Date") to ______________________________________ (the "Director" or "you") a number of shares determined as set forth below, of the common stock of the Company under the Stock Yards Bancorp, Inc. 2015 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan (the "Plan"). A copy of the Plan is attached, and any capitalized terms used but not defined in this Agreement shall have the meaning given them in the Plan.


 


Grant of Award. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Plan, Company hereby grants to you a number of Restricted Stock Units equal to $__________, divided by the Fair Market Value per share of the Company's common stock on the Grant Date (rounded down to the nearest whole share) (the "RSUs").   Each RSU shall entitle you, if the service conditions below are met, to have issued to you (or credited on your behalf, if receipt is deferred) a number of shares of common stock equal to the number of RSUs subject to this Award, and to be paid cash equal to any dividends paid during the Restricted period on that number of shares (the "Dividend Equivalent")


 


Restricted Period; Payment or Deferral. Except as provided in the Plan regarding Change of Control and below regarding termination of services, the RSUs granted under this Award will be unvested as of the date hereof and will become fully vested and nonforfeitable on the first to occur of (i) the one-year anniversary of the Grant Date, if you continue to provide services to the Company on that date, or (ii) upon retiring from the Board at age 70 or older (the "Restricted Period"). Any RSUs that do not vest in accordance with the foregoing provisions shall terminate when service terminates. Unless you timely elected under the terms of the Director Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan to have delivery of shares and Dividend Equivalents with respect to these RSUs  deferred beyond the end of the Restricted Period, then, at the end of the Restricted Period, the number of shares of Common Stock issuable under this Award and cash for the Dividend Equivalent will be issued to you in satisfaction of this Award, within 74 days after the Restricted Period ends


 


Transfer Restrictions. The RSUs may not be sold, transferred, pledged, exchanged, hypothecated or otherwise disposed during the Restricted Period, other than by will or by the laws of descent and distribution.


 


Acknowledgments. By signing below, you acknowledge that you have received a copy of the Plan, and you hereby accept the RSUs subject to all the terms and provisions of the Plan and the program.  Nothing contained in the Plan, the program or this Agreement shall give you any rights to continued service on the Board of Directors of the Company or Stock Yards Bank.


 


	 	 	 	STOCK YARDS BANCORP, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	 	 
	Director	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	 	 	Date:
June 13, 2016

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

A15-1946 

In rePetition for Disciplinary Action against 

David Edwin Wandling, a Minnesota Attorney, 

Registration No. 0232312. 

ORDER 

Onm OF 

AJII!IBJAIECUitliS 

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition 

for disciplinary action alleging that respondent David Edwin Wandling committed . 

professional misconduct warranting public discipline-nc,1mely, misappropriating client 

funds; making false statements to conceal the misappropriation; failing to comply with 

court rules; failing to maintain trust account books and records; engaging in trust-account 

violations; failing to provide written notice of disbursements of earned fees; and making 

false statements to the Director. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), (b), (c)(3)-(5), and 

(h), as interpreted by Appendix 1 thereto, 3.4(c), 4.1, 8.l(a)-(b), and 8.4(c)-(d), and Rule 

25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR). 

The parties have filed an amended stipulation for discipline with the court. In it, 

respondent withdraws his previously filed answer, admits the allegations in the petition for 

disciplinary action, except for one paragraph, and waives his rights pursuant to Rule 14, 

RLPR. The parties recommend that, in light of mitigating factors, the appropriate 

discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 30 

months. 

1 
The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended 

discipline. 

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Respondent David Edwin Wandling is indefinitely suspended from the 

practice of law, effective 14 days from the date of this order, with no right to petition for 

reinstatement for 30 months from the effective date of his suspension. 

2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18( a)-( d), RLPR. 

Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the written examination required 

for admission to the practice of law by the State Board of Law Examiners on the subject of 

professional responsibility and satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements 

pursuant to Rule 18( e), RLPR. 

3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of 

suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals) and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant 

to Rule 24, RLPR. 

Dated: June 13, 2016 BY THE COURT: 

~sgk Associate Justice 

2
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 249 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that Act shall 

not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2011 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. 

MCCAIN, Mr. KYL, Mr. LEE, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide 

that Act shall not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF GRAY WOLF FROM ENDAN4 GERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973. 

5 Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

6 U.S.C. 1533) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 249 IS

1 ‘‘(j) EXEMPTION OF GRAY WOLF.—This Act shall 

2 not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus).’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2449 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2449

 To suspend temporarily the duty on nonenumerated footwear for women, 
                       valued $25/pair or higher.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on nonenumerated footwear for women, 
                       valued $25/pair or higher.

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

SECTION 1. NONENUMERATED FOOTWEAR FOR WOMEN, VALUED $25/PAIR OR HIGHER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Nonenumerated       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        footwear for                                                       31/2015.......
                        women, valued $25/
                        pair or higher
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6405.90.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30435

ERIC BORCIK, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant 

v. 

CROSBY TUGS, L.L.C., 

 Defendant - Appellee 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Eric Borcik brought this whistleblower suit against Crosby Tugs, 

alleging that Crosby had fired him in retaliation for reporting environmental 

violations. Under Louisiana law, Borcik can only recover if he reported the 

violation in “good faith.” La. Stat. Ann. § 30:2027. The case was tried to a jury, 

which was instructed that “good faith” meant that “the plaintiff had an honest 

belief that an environmental violation occurred and that he did not report it 

either to seek an unfair advantage or to try to harm his employer or another 

employee.” The jury found via special interrogatory that Borcik did not report 

the violation in good faith, resulting in a defense verdict. Borcik appealed, 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30435 Document: 00514016097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2017
No. 15-30435

2 

arguing that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury correctly on 

the definition of “good faith.” 

On appeal, we determined that we were not in a position to make an Erie 

guess as to the meaning of “good faith” and certified the following question to 

the Louisiana Supreme Court: 

What is the meaning of “good faith” as that term is used in the 

Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes 

30:2027?

Borcik v. Crosby Tugs, L.L.C., 656 F. App’x 681, 685 (5th Cir. 2016). The 

Louisiana Supreme Court accepted the question and answered it as follows: 

The term “good faith,” as used in R.S. 30:2027, means an employee 

is acting with an honest belief that a violation of an environmental 

law, rule, or regulation occurred. 

Borcik v. Crosby Tugs, L.L.C., 2016-1372, --- So. 3d ---, 2017 WL 1716226 (La. 

5/3/17).

Based on the definition of the term provided by the Louisiana Supreme 

Court, the district court erred by instructing the jury that “good faith” required 

more than “an honest belief that a violation of an environmental law, rule, or 

regulation occurred.” 

Accordingly, we remand for such orders and further proceedings as the 

district court, in its discretion, deems necessary and appropriate. 

REMANDED. 

 Case: 15-30435 Document: 00514016097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2017
Steven Paul CROWLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3274

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 13, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128047 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

CAROL ARCHER-HALL,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128047 

 COA: 257740 

WCAC: 03-000249 

VARIETY FOOD SERVICES, INC.,

and AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1006 

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. 

October 13, 2005 

Clerk
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: W.W.W.

CASE NO.: SC18-451

Supreme Court of Florida.

MARCH 27, 2018

The Joint Stipulation to Extend Probation is approved and the probationary period imposed against W.W.W. in *Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: W.W.W.* , Case No. SC16-1025, is extended until *53March 27, 2021, under the existing terms and conditions with the addition of increasing his random urinalysis to monthly urinalysis for the first year of his extension and requiring his attendance at 90 AA meetings within 90 days, effective immediately.

*The filing of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date**of this probation*.

A True Copy

Test:

John A. Tomasino Clerk, Supreme Court
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 22, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40078

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN ROMAN-NOYOLA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(5:04-CR-1348-ALL)

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Roman-Noyola appeals the sentence imposed upon his

guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Roman claims the district court reversibly erred under United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), by

sentencing him pursuant to a mandatory application of the

Sentencing Guidelines. There was no Booker error (Sixth-Amendment

violation) because the only enhancement to Roman’s sentence was for
2

his prior conviction. See id., 125 S. Ct. at 756, 769. Instead,

the district court committed Fanfan error by sentencing Roman under

a mandatory guidelines scheme. See United States v. Walters, 418

F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The Government concedes Roman preserved his Fanfan claim. As

such, we review for harmless error. See id. at 464. This court

has rejected that Fanfan error is structural. See id. at 463. 

The record does not show the district court would have imposed

the same sentence had the guidelines been advisory rather than

mandatory. The Government has not satisfied its burden of showing

the Fanfan error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.

at 463-64. Accordingly, we vacate Roman’s sentence and remand for

resentencing in accordance with Booker. 

Roman next asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional

on their face, and as applied in his case, in the light of Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Roman’s constitutional

challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Roman contends that case was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would

overrule it in the light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected

such contentions on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains

binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th
3

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Roman concedes this

claim is foreclosed in the light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent; he raises it to preserve it for further review. 

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 10, 2022 No. 04-20-00089-CV VERMILLION FC, LP, Appellant
v. 1776 ENERGY PARTNERS ,

Appellee From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-10-13812-ZCV Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant Vermillion FC, LP filed a motion for correction of the judgment and memorandum opinion nunc pro tunc to include an omitted party on December 3, 2021. Appellee 1776 Partners, LLC filed a response on December 13, 2021, and Appellant filed a reply on December 29, 2021. Appellant’s motion is DENIED
. See Cohen v. Midtown Mgmt. Dist. , 490 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.); LaGoye v. Victoria Wood Condo. Ass’n , 112 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of January, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Teashun STREETER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3802

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32








CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Ridgewood Energy M Fund,
LLC (the “Fund”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned officers of the Fund hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of their 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
      Fund.








RIDGEWOOD
      ENERGY M FUND, LLCDated:
                                  March
      19, 2009
                                  By:
                                  /s/
                                  
                                  ROBERT E. SWANSONName:
                                  
                                  Robert
      E. SwansonTitle:
                                  
                                  President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
                                  March
      19, 2009
                                  By:
                                  /s/
                                  
                                  KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRYName:
                                  
                                  Kathleen
      P. McSherryTitle:
                                  
                                  Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
Ridgewood Energy M Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy M Fund,
LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a
separate disclosure document.
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



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Language Line, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



|(iii) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(iv) | 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, 2005



/s/ Matthew T. Gibbs IIMatthew T. Gibbs IIChief Financial Officer and Director(Principal Financial Officer)
Robert STANTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3680

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
The SCHOOL BOARD OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, Petitioner, v. David TENNEY, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-2188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of THL Credit, Inc. (the Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terrence W. Olson, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Registrant.



| |  |                                   
| |  | ----------------------------------
| |  | /s/    TERRENCE W. OLSON          
| |  | Name:   Terrence W. Olson         
| |  | Title:     Chief Financial Officer
| |  | Date:     March 7, 2014