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






Exhibit 10.27


FARMER BROS. CO.


STOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES
FOR DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


Adopted by the Board of Directors on February 20, 2008, 
as amended October 13, 2014 and
May 4, 2016


The Board of Directors of Farmer Bros. Co. (the “Company”) has adopted these Stock Ownership Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to further align the interests of the Company’s executive officers and independent directors with the interests of the Company’s stockholders and to further promote the Company’s commitment to sound corporate governance. 


I.    Executive Officer Stock Ownership Guidelines


Executive officers of the Company, as identified by the Committee (“Officers”), are expected to own and hold a number of shares of the Company’s common stock (“Common Stock”) based on the following guidelines:


	
		
	Officer
	Value of Shares Owned

	Chief Executive Officer
	at least three (3) times base salary

	Other Executive Officers
	at least one (1) times base salary






II.    Non-Employee Director Stock Ownership Guidelines 


Non-employee directors are expected to own and hold during their service as a Board member a number of shares of Common Stock with a value equal to at least $150,000.  


III.    Compliance with the Guidelines 


Stock that counts toward satisfaction of these Guidelines include: (a) shares of Common Stock owned outright by the Officer or non-employee director and his or her immediate family members who share the same household, whether held individually or jointly; (b) restricted stock or restricted stock units (whether or not the restrictions have lapsed); (c) ESOP shares; (d) shares of Common Stock held in trust for the benefit of the Officer or non-employee director or his or her family and (e) shares of Common Stock issuable under vested options held by the Officer or non-employee director. 


Until the applicable guideline is achieved, each Officer and non-employee director is required to retain all “profit shares,” which are those shares remaining after payment of taxes on earned equity awards under the Farmer Bros. Co. Amended and Restated 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan or under its predecessor plan, the Farmer Bros. Co. 2007 Omnibus Plan, or under any successor plan, such as shares granted pursuant to the exercise of vested options and restricted stock that has vested.  Officers and non-employee directors are expected to continuously own sufficient shares to meet these Guidelines once attained.  Nothing contained herein shall otherwise prohibit any officer or non-employee director from transferring shares acquired by such person other than pursuant to the foregoing equity plans, including shares directly purchased in the market and ESOP shares, if any, subject to applicable securities laws and the Company’s other policies and procedures, including, without limitation, the Company’s Insider Trading Policy.  




1







These Guidelines may be waived at the discretion of the Board if compliance would create severe hardship or prevent an Officer or non-employee director from complying with a court order. It is expected that these instances will be rare. 


2
# C_2022002EN.01003701.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWERED)

(Case T-756/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VDL E-POWERED - Earlier national figurative marks e-POWER - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 2/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: P. Martini-Berthon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: VDL Groep BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Rijks, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2020 (Case R 2915/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nissan Motor and VDL Groep.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nissan Motor Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of VDL Groep BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nissan Motor Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and of VDL Groep BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12627; No. 2024-12]

Determination Pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the U.S. Secretary of State by 
the laws of the United States, including under the Foreign Missions 
Act, 22 U.S.C. 4301, et seq. (``the Act''), and delegated pursuant to 
U.S. Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 214, dated 
September 20, 1994, and after due consideration of matters related to 
the protection of the interests of the United States, as well as the 
benefits, privileges, and immunities provided to missions of the United 
States abroad, I hereby designate as a benefit for purposes of the Act 
exemption from charges assessed by the Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority of New York for entry into its designated ``Congestion Relief 
Zone'' for foreign missions and certain international organizations. 
This benefit extends to members and personnel of and representatives to 
such foreign missions and international organizations who enjoy certain 
tax-free privileges as determined by the Office of Foreign Missions and 
may be extended to vehicles bearing diplomatic and consular license 
plates issued by the Office of Foreign Missions.
    I determine that such exemption shall be provided to such foreign 
missions and international organizations on such terms and conditions 
as may be approved by the Office of Foreign Missions and that any state 
or local laws to the contrary are hereby preempted.
    This action is necessary to protect the interests of the United 
States, including with respect to fulfilling its international and 
domestic legal obligations and ensuring similar exemptions for U.S. 
missions and mission members abroad, and to facilitate relations 
between the United States and foreign states and relations between the 
United States and international organizations.
    The exemption from charges assessed by the Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority of New York for entry into its designated 
``Congestion Relief Zone'' provided by this designation and 
determination shall apply to charges that have been or will be assessed 
against any foreign mission or international organization subject to 
this determination.

Rebecca E. Gonzales,
Director, Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2024-31595 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4711-11-P
```
ex_10-2.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing






Verbal
Agreement 


 


Date: April 15th, 2016


 


 


The director
and sole officer of Clancy Corp. Iryna Kologrim confirms in this verbal agreement
to grant a loan to Clancy Corp. if company needs funds for its operation and
payment of liabilities in the amount of forty thousand (40,000) US dollars. The
loan amount has no interest and should be considered unsafe without a maturity
date.


 


 


Authorized signatures
of Clancy Corp. and Iryna Kologrim:


 


__/s/ Iryna
Kologrim_____________________
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0290

_____________________________

K. L. H. JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Susanne Wilson Bullard, Judge.

December 11, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Emmalyn Dalton, Assistant 

Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# C_2021044EN.01004302.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/43

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BT v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-438/20) (1)

(2021/C 44/64)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---
# C_2020339EN.01000301.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 July 2020 — DM, LR v Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) Alpes-Provence

(Case C-337/20)

(2020/C 339/04)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DM, LR

Defendant: Caisse régionale de Crédit agricole mutuel (CRCAM) Alpes-Provence

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 58 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, (1) to be interpreted as establishing a liability regime for unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions made by payment service providers, precluding any action under the ordinary rules of civil liability in respect of the same acts for breach by that provider of the obligations imposed on him or her by national law, in particular where the payment service user fails to inform the payment service provider of the unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transaction within 13 months of the date of debit? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 58 of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, (1) to be interpreted as establishing a liability regime for unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions made by payment service providers, precluding any action under the ordinary rules of civil liability in respect of the same acts for breach by that provider of the obligations imposed on him or her by national law, in particular where the payment service user fails to inform the payment service provider of the unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transaction within 13 months of the date of debit?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does that same article preclude the payment service user’s guarantor from invoking the ordinary rules of civil liability in respect of the same facts against the payment service provider, beneficiary of the guarantee, in order to challenge the amount of the secured debt? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does that same article preclude the payment service user’s guarantor from invoking the ordinary rules of civil liability in respect of the same facts against the payment service provider, beneficiary of the guarantee, in order to challenge the amount of the secured debt?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40699

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUILLERMO MARTINEZ-POSADA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-31-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Guillermo 

Martinez-Posada has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Posada has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant parts of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* 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

February 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40699 Document: 00513385119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
No. 15-40699

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.

 Case: 15-40699 Document: 00513385119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016
# C_2021053EN.01001501.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/15

---

Request for an opinion submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion C-1/20)

(2021/C 53/18)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux, M. Van Regemorter, S. Baeyens, Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Is the draft modernised Energy Charter Treaty compatible with the Treaties, and in particular Article 19 TEU and Article 344 TFEU:

| — | so far as concerns Article 26 of that agreement, if that article may be interpreted as allowing the intra-EU application of the dispute settlement mechanism? |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as concerns Article 26 of that agreement, if that article may be interpreted as allowing the intra-EU application of the dispute settlement mechanism?

| — | in so far as, if Article 26 of that agreement were to be interpreted as allowing the intra-EU application of the dispute settlement mechanism, that agreement does not lay down a specific, express rule or an explicit disconnection clause, in particular in the definitions of investment and investor in Article 1 of the envisaged agreement, providing for the non-applicability of the general mechanism of Article 26 between the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as, if Article 26 of that agreement were to be interpreted as allowing the intra-EU application of the dispute settlement mechanism, that agreement does not lay down a specific, express rule or an explicit disconnection clause, in particular in the definitions of investment and investor in Article 1 of the envisaged agreement, providing for the non-applicability of the general mechanism of Article 26 between the Member States?

---
Ernest T. JONES v. MISSISSIPPI INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING

2016-CT-01050-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: December 4, 2018 Closed: February 14, 2019

Certiorari - Denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                    (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITEDSTATES CODE)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,
Christopher T. Seaver, Chief Executive Officer of Hydril Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

         (1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
         June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  August 13, 2003                         /s/ Christopher T. Seaver
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Christopher T. Seaver
                                                Chief Executive Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), in accordance with
the procedures provided for by the Securities and Exchange Commission in Release
No. 33-8212 for treatment as a document "accompanying" the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q to which it relates, and is not being filed as part of the Report or
as a separate disclosure document. This certificate shall not be deemed "filed"
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall
this certificate be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be set forth by specific reference in
such a filing.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
# C_2020215EN.01002101.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 12 March 2020 — Proceedings against LU

(Case C-136/20)

(2020/C 215/26)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Zalaegerszegi Járásbíróság

Party to the main proceedings

LU

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the rule laid down in Article 5(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA (1) on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties be interpreted as meaning that, where the issuing Member State indicates one of the types of conduct listed in that provision, the authority of the executing Member State has no additional discretion to refuse execution and must execute the [decision imposing the penalty]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the rule laid down in Article 5(1) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA (1) on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties be interpreted as meaning that, where the issuing Member State indicates one of the types of conduct listed in that provision, the authority of the executing Member State has no additional discretion to refuse execution and must execute the [decision imposing the penalty]?

| 2. | If that question is answered in the negative, can the authority of the executing Member State argue that the conduct indicated in the decision of the issuing Member State does not correspond to the conduct described in the list? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If that question is answered in the negative, can the authority of the executing Member State argue that the conduct indicated in the decision of the issuing Member State does not correspond to the conduct described in the list?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16.

---
**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 Annual Report of Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned 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 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 Company. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: December 6, 2006 | By: | */s/ William R. Donaldson* |
|------------------------|-----|----------------------------|

*-----------------------------------------------*

William R. Donaldson

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. and will be retained by Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DELLAREESE YOUNG,

Respondent

v.

DAVID YOUNG,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 52 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of July , 2018, the Petition for Review is DENIED.