alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
gfed20150303_8k.htm




Exhibit 10.4

 

 

Written Description of 

2015 Executive Incentive Compensation Annual Plan – 

Chief Lending Officer

 

The following is a description of the material terms of the 2015 Executive Incentive Compensation Annual Plan (the “Plan”) that was adopted by the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) with respect to the bonus payable to H. Michael Mattson, the Company’s Chief Lending Officer (the "Executive"), for 2015:

 

The Plan will pay a maximum of $67,600 of which fifty percent (50%) of the bonus amount will be paid in cash and fifty percent (50%) will be paid in the form of restricted stock grants. There are three possible levels of incentive awards: threshold (25%); target (50%); and maximum (100%). For any bonus amount to be paid, the threshold level of performance must be achieved. The bonus amount will be prorated for performance achievements between the threshold and target levels and between the target and maximum levels. The four performance measurements of the Company (and the weight given to each measurement) applicable to each award level are as follows: (i) revenue growth (25%); (ii) net interest margin (25%); (iii) pre-tax net income (25%); and (iv) non-performing assets to average total assets (25%). The following minimum criteria must all be satisfied before an award is paid under the Plan: (i) net income of the Company for calendar year 2015 of at least 75% of approved budget to receive full performance incentive and incentive will be reduced by 50% if Company achieves between 50% and 74.99% of budget net income; No incentive will be paid if net income is below 50% of budget; (ii) satisfactory audits as determined by the Board of Directors of the Company after review of findings from regulatory examination reports and applicable audits and reviews; (iii) the bank’s tier 1 leverage capital and total risk-based capital ratios must not fall below 9% and 12%, respectively, and adversely classified assets to tier 1 capital and allowance for loan losses must not exceed 35%; and (iv) satisfactory performance appraisal, actively employed by Guaranty Bank, and in good standing at the time the bonus is paid, which will not be prior to the public release of earnings in 2016 for the calendar year 2015. The Board of Directors of the Company retains the right to make the final determination of the bonus payment and amount, if any, and may consider other pertinent facts prior to making an award of restricted stock. All incentive payments shall be subject to the Company’s Compensation Clawback Policy.

 

The Plan also includes vesting and holding periods for the restricted stock grants. The vesting period for these grants shall be three (3) years from the date of grant. Also, the Executive agrees not to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of such shares for a period of three (3) years from the date of the award. Exceptions to such restriction on sale, transfer or disposition may be granted for hardship circumstances to be determined by the Committee.
| 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 operation of the                Company. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                May 9, 2006 | /s/                Vernon W. Hill, II                                              |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Vernon                W. Hill, II                                                  |
|                             | President                and Chief Executive Officer                               |
|                             |                                                                               |
| Date:                May 9, 2006 | /s/                Douglas J. Pauls                                                |
|                             | Douglas                J. Pauls                                                    |
|                             | Executive                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |

----
#### In re GIRDER ST. IN CITY OF BUFFALO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 13, 1912.)

In the matter of the application of the City of Buffalo to acquire lands in fee simple for the purpose of widening Girder street, between Delavan avenue and Kensington avenue.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Held: (1) That the appellant West is not entitled to substantial damages for the right of way; (2) that the Ziegle Brewing Company is not entitled to recover damages for the building as real estate, but only for the cost of moving and placing the same on adjoining premises. See In re Hawkstone St. in City of New York. 137 App. Div. 630, 122 N. Y. Supp. 316, affirmed 199 N. Y. 567, 93 N. E. 377; In re Briggs Avenue, 118 App. Div. 224, 102 N. Y. Supp. 1102.
851 F.2d 394

#### Thomas D. POWELL, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.

No. 86-5680.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 28, 1988.

Thomas D. Powell, pro se.

Deborah A. Robinson, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Royce C. Lamberth and Craig R. Lawrence, Asst. U.S. Attys., Dept, of Justice, were on appellees’ motion for summary affirmance. William J. Dempster, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty. and John D. Bates, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dept, of Justice- also entered an appearance for appellees.

On Motion for Summary Affirmance

Before WALD, Chief Judge, MIKVA and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of both appellant’s and appellee’s responses to the court’s order of April 20, 1988, it is

ORDERED by the court that appellee’s motion for summary affirmance be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED on the court’s own motion that the district court judg*140ment filed October 28, 1986, as it relates to appellant’s Privacy Act claims be reversed and the case remanded for further consideration consistent with this order. On the basis of the record before us, there is no legitimate reason for the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to refuse to amend a record already made public with regard only to appellant’s correct residence address. *See Rosenberg v. Meese,*622 F.Supp. 1451, 1460 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (the court required disclosure of the district court’s sentencing of the defendant; although the transcript was exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act by reason of a valid § 552a(j)(2) exemption, the transcript was a matter of public record and the reasons justifying the exemption were therefore held to be inapplicable). This holding does not pretermit the BOP’s policy of denying disclosure or amendment under the Privacy Act. *See*5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2) (1982); 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.-97(a)(4), (b)(3), and (b)(9). Instead, this holding is- -limited to the disclosure or amendment" of objective, noncontroversial information such as race, sex, and, as in this case, a correct address. We leave to the district court the determination as to the appropriateness of appellant’s claims for damages.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. *See*D.C.Cir.Rule 15.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LAURENCE HALSTEAD III,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE

COMPANY (GEICO), et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 Civil Action No. 08-1778 (JR)

MEMORANDUM

Although the complaint in this case says it is for

"breach of contract, malicious breach of contract, breach of the

covenant of fair dealing, violation of consumer protection and

for abuse of process, malicious abuse of process and misuse of

process," it is really an attempt to collect more money than the

$100,000 the plaintiff accepted in settlement of claims he made

years ago after he suffered injuries in an automobile accident. 

The suit is entirely without merit. Plaintiff’s assertion of

third party rights under his passenger’s insurance policy (see

Complaint, para. 85) is muddled, to say the least. The only

“contract” that plaintiff had was an agreement to settle, and

that agreement was honored. The defendants neither initiated nor

served process, so they could not have "abused," "maliciously

abused," or "misused" process. Plaintiff has cited no authority,

nor have we found any, for the proposition that either the

covenant of fair dealing or the consumer protection statute has
- 2 -

any application to the settlement of tort cases, particularly

where, as here, all the litigants were represented by competent

counsel. Plaintiff settled and dismissed with prejudice the same

claim against GEICO that he has attempted to repackage here,

executing a general release of GEICO. The conflict of interest

claim he asserts en passant against the lawyers who represented

GEICO in Superior Court is particularly unmeritorious; counsel

were not responsible for the fact (surely not an unusual fact in

Washington, D.C.) that the underinsured motorist coverage on the

vehicle plaintiff was driving and the coverage on the vehicle

driven by the tortfeasor was all written by GEICO. If

plaintiff's conflict of interest argument were accepted, it would

mean that in every case in which GEICO has insured both the

plaintiff and the defendant it would have to be unrepresented on

one side or another of the "v." Plaintiff has failed to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendants' motions

to dismiss will be granted.

 JAMES ROBERTSON

United States District Judge
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2198 

To suspend temporarily the duty on fixed ratio speed changers for truckmounted concrete mixers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

Mr. PETRI (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, and Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on fixed ratio speed 

changers for truck-mounted concrete mixers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FIXED RATIO SPEED CHANGERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.84.01 Fixed ratio speed changers 

for truck-mounted concrete 

mixer drums (provided for in 

subheading 8483.40.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2198 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Milton Cox, President and CEO of Altus Explorations Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Altus Explorations Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004 (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 Altus Explorations Inc.

Dated: April 15, 2005
| /s/ Milton Cox |
|----------------|

Milton Cox

President and CEO 

(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6696

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TREVOR PLACIDO BENJAMIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR96-217-DKC) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 11, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Trevor Placido Benjamin, Appellant Pro Se. Jan Paul Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed” on March 15 & April 13, 1999, respectively, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on March 17 & April 14, 1899. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the orders were physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decisions. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Trevor Placido Benjamin appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to extend the time in which to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999), and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Benjamin , No. CR-96-217-DKC (Mar. 17 & Apr. 14, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Flow International Corporation,
a Washington corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stephen R. Light, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Douglas P. Fletcher, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                |  |                 
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|/s/ STEPHEN R. LIGHT                            |  | January 31, 2007
|Stephen R. Light Principal Executive Officer    |  |                 
|                                                | 
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. FLETCHER                         |  | January 31, 2007
|Douglas P. Fletcher Principal Financial Officer |  |
(121 App. Div. 599.)

#### PEOPLE ex rel. HERMANN v. KAUFMAN et al., Town Assessors.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department

October 23, 1907.)

Taxation—Assessment—Review—Certiobahi—Grounds Not Previously Alleged.

Under Laws 1896, p. 882, c. 908, § 250, providing that any person aggrieved by illegality, overvaluation, or inequality of assessment may petition for a writ of certiorari, stating the grounds, etc., when the only complaint made in the statement filed with the assessors and in the petition for a writ of certiorari to review an assessment was as to overvaluation, that the relator, a nonresident, was assessed in the resident list, cannot be raised by motion to cancel the assessment on the petition, writ, and return, and an order appointing a referee to inquire into the allegation of overvaluation only will be sustained.

Appeal from Special Term, Westchester County.

Certiorari, by "the people, on the relation of Ferdinand Hermann, against Henry J. Kaufman and others, as town assessors, to review an assessment. From an order denying a motion to cancel the assessment and appointing a- referee to inquire into the question of overvaluation only, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MIEEER, JJ.

Howard H. Morse, for appellant.

Hugh A. Thornton, for respondents.

GAYNOR, J.

The appellant’s brief is very misleading. The principal argument in it is that the court below erred in not cancelling the assessment of the appellant’s land on the motion therefor on the petition, writ and return, on the ground that the petitioner being a nonresident, he was nevertheless assessed in the resident list. But when we turn to the statement filed with the assessors on grievance day by the appellant, and to the petition for the writ of certiorari, we find no such grievance or illegality complained of. On the contrary, the appellant’s sole complaint therein is that his assessment was erroneous for overvaluation, as compared with the assessment of other property, and unequal and he only asked for its reduction. The court below refused to inquire into the question of inequality, for the reason that the statement filed on grievance day did not specify the instances of inequality, i. e., in which the property of others was proportionately undervalued. This seems to be made the law by the courts (People ex rel. Sutphen v. Feitner, 45 App. Div. 542, 61 N. Y. Supp. 432; People ex rel. Erie R. Co. v. Webster, 49 App. Div. 556, 63 N. Y. Supp. 574), although there is no such requirement in the tax law (section 36, c. 908, p. 810, Laws 1896). There is a requirement that such instances be given in the petition for the writ of certiorari (section 250). The order appealed from appoints a referee to inquire into the allegation of overvaluation only.

The order should be affirmed.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

HOOKER, J„ concurs. HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and RICH and MILLER, JJ., concur in result.
---

March 29, 2011

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------
|    |                                               
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                    
|    |                                               
|    | Consent of Expert                             

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2010, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, Scott Cowie, MAusIMM, hereby consent to the use of my name
in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the
following technical report (the "Technical Report"):

- Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated
  February 17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual Report.

I have read the Companys Annual Report and confirm that it
documents fairly and accurately represent the information that supports the
disclosure.

Yours truly,



/s/ Scott Cowie

---

Scott Cowie, MAusIMM

Wardrop Engineering Inc.

---
# C_2008175EN.01000101.xml

| 10.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5118 — P7S1/United Internet/Maxdome JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 175/01)

On 29 April 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5118. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5118. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ex parte Luis Gustavo Ventura Gil

No. 06-24-00011-CR

Appeal from the County Court of Kinney

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 12027CR). 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and 

Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Rambin. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the State to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s 

pretrial writ of habeas corpus issued on January 9, 2024, and dismiss this appeal.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 22, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### BYAM, Appellant, v. LAKEWOOD HOTEL CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Esther A. F. Byam against the Lakewood Hotel Company. J. A. Smith, for appellant. E. E. Wise, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
[No. 21515-2-II.

Division Two.

October 3, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Demetrius A. Harris, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kit-sap County, No. 96-8-01200-2, Karen B. Conoley, J., entered December 20, 1996. *Remanded*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Morgan and Armstrong, JJ.