alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cffi_Ex_10_16


		
			Exhibit 10.16
		

		
			BASE SALARIES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
		

		
			OF
		

		
			C&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		

		
			The following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) effective as of January 1, 2015 of the executive officers of C&F Financial Corporation: 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						Larry G. Dillon

					
					
						    

					
					
						$

					
					
						309,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Thomas F. Cherry

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						275,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Bryan E. McKernon

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						220,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President and Chief Executive Officer of C&F Mortgage Corporation

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						S. Dustin Crone

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						211,500 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						President of C&F Finance Company

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						John A. Seaman, III

					
					
						 

					
					
						$

					
					
						185,000 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Senior Vice President and Chief Credit Officer of Citizens and Farmers Bank
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,531
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (75)
<INVENTORY>                                     16,379
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,134
<PP&E>                                          24,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,531)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,533
<BONDS>                                        170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,669)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,578
<SALES>                                         31,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,519
<CGS>                                           20,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,862
<INCOME-TAX>                                       743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,119
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# ORIGINAL

3Jn tbe Wniteb**~tates** 

# <!Court ofjf 

# eberal q[laims

No. 16-703C (Filed July 18, 2016) NOT FOR PUBLICATION



### ************************ 

### * * OLIVER-VAUGHN DOUCE 

### * AL-DEY, 

### * * Plaintiff, 

### *

v. 

### * * THE UNITED STATES, 

### * * Defendant

. 

### * * ************************

ORDER

On June 20, 2016, the Court issued an order sua sponte dismissing this case because the United States Court ofFederal Claims does not havejurisdiction over its subject matter. Eight days afterjudgmentwas entered, the Clerk's office received from Oliver-Vaughn Douce Al-Dey what purports to be a motion for leave
to amend the complaint under Rule 15 ofthe Rules ofthe United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Accompanyingthis motion is a copy ofthe proposed amended complaint.

The basis for the motion appears to be Mr. Douce Al-Dey's desire to provide a

more definite statement ofhis claim under RCFC 12(e). As his case has been dismissed, a motion to amend the complaintwould notbe proper. Taking into considerationthat plaintiffis representing himself, and noting that the motion does include the word "reconsider," the Court will treat the document as a motion for reconsideration under RCFC 59, andthe Clerk shallfile it accordingly.

A review ofthe proposed amended complaint reveals thatplaintiffhas added

no allegations that would place his case within our court's subject matter jurisdiction. His dispute is with New York City officials and their contractors who apparently towed his car. Callingthe responsible parties "municipal entity agents for U.S.A.," Prop. Am. Compl. 

### ii 8, does not make them so, and the allegation that the United States government is "in charge of" the City, id. 

## ii 9, is legally incorrect.

### See Gharb v. United States, No. 12-911C, 2013 WL 4828589, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 9, 2013) (citing

### Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. S.C. State PortsAuth., 535 U.S. 743, 751 (2002)). As the Court explainedin the previous order, we cannothear cases concerning the actions ofstate or local government officials andtheir agents. 

### See Vlahakis v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 1018, 1018 (1978); 

### Clark v. United States, No. 11-lOC, 2014WL 3728172, at *9 (Fed. Cl. July 28, 2014). The allegation that the United States is holdingplaintiff's stolenproperty, Prop. Am. Compl.**~** 11, appears to be based on nothing more thanplaintiff's mistakenbeliefthat the federal and municipal governments are one and the same, 

### see Compl.**~** 11. And plaintiff's citationto 

### Williamson CountyRegional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), 

### see Prop. Am. Compl.**~** 10, while in some regards commendable consideringhis

### prose status, is irrelevant, as that case concerns the procedures for ripening a takings claim to be brought in a U.S. district court. The U.S. Court ofFederal Claims is not a district court. 

### See 28 U.S.C. § 171.

In sum, plaintiffhas provided no valid ground for reconsidering the dismissal ofhis case. The motion is accordingly 

### DENIED.

IT IS SO 

### ORDERED.

- 2 -
Exhibit 32.2
                                  ------------


                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Henry P. Herms, the Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

  1.     The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended July 31,
         2008 (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/ Henry P. Herms
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Henry P. Herms
                                     Vice President - Finance and
September 18, 2008                    Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      32.2**




SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Med-Emerg International Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, ,  to the
      best of such officer’s knowledge,  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.





Dated:
      August 14, 2007





By:       /s/
      William
      Danis


Name:
      William Danis


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
      Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Minera Andes Inc. for the
nine-month period ended September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,285,317
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      124,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,409,497
<PP&E>                                           5,535,322
<DEPRECIATION>                                      38,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,906,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              109,527
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        15,132,262
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,335,452)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,906,337
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   972,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (972,672)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (972,672)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (972,672)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
#### FRANK RIVERA *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. COLUMBUS CADET CORPS OF AMERICA *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

See same case below: 59 *N. J. Super.*445.

*.Messrs. Ohazin & Ghazin*and *Mr. Solomon Lubow*for the petitioners.

■ *Messrs. Budd, Lamer & Kent*for the respondents.

April 8, 1960.

Denied.
Order entered November 2 6 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00446

- CV

JONI DODD, Appellant

V.

MONA WOOTEN, ET AL., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 298th Judic ial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 02912



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 22, 2019 motion to abate proceedings. We

DENY the motion . This case is at issue and will be submitted in due course.

/s/ ROBERT D. B URNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 8, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00271

- CV

ESTATE OF JOHNNIE MAE KING

,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001

- P C

- 1263

Honorable Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of T ime to File Appellee ’ s Brief is

GRANTED. The appellee ’ s brief is due on October 26, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se t my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Metropolitan Form Industries, Inc., Appellant, v *635North River Insurance Company, Respondent.

In an action to recover on a policy of insurance, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated November 15, 1984, which denied its motion to vacate the automatic dismissal of its suit pursuant to CPLR 3404 and restore the matter to the calendar.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term properly denied plaintiffs third motion to restore this case to the calendar. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### Glenn M. Gold *v.*University of Bridgeport School of Law et al.

*Max F. Brunswick,*in support of the petition.

*Richard L. Albrecht,*in opposition.

Decided October 25, 1989

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 19 Conn. App. 379, is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 577 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 577

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify eligibility for 
                         the child tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2011

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify eligibility for 
                         the child tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Tax Credit Integrity 
Preservation Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CHILD TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 24 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``under this section to a 
taxpayer'' and all that follows and inserting ``under this section to 
any taxpayer unless--
            ``(1) such taxpayer includes the taxpayer's valid 
        identification number (as defined in section 6428(h)(2)) on the 
        return of tax for the taxable year, and
            ``(2) with respect to any qualifying child, the taxpayer 
        includes the name and taxpayer identification number of such 
        qualifying child on such return of tax.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Denis A. Krusos, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended July 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 the Company.


                                                   /s/ Denis A. Krusos
                                                   -------------------
                                                   Denis A. Krusos
                                                   Chairman of the Board and
September 2, 2004                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### Jonas H. Lane et al., Appellants, *v.*Charles Rosenberg et al., Respondents.

(Submitted June 6, 1890;

decided June 24, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made June 26, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict directed by the court.

*Ma/rtvn & Smith*for appellants.

*Donohue, Newcombe <& Cdrdozo*for respondents:

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Crigger, Appellant, *v.*Crigger et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *Crigger v. Crigger,*107 Ohio St.3d 100, 2005-Ohio-5975.]

(No. 2005-0548

Submitted October 12, 2005

Decided November 23, 2005.)

Joseph D. Reed, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *Harrold v. Collier,*107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 11
 
 
 LIVEREEL MEDIA CORPORATION
 
 CODE OF ETHICS
 
 FOR
 
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR CONTROLLER AND PERSONS PERFORMING SIMILAR FUNCTIONS
 
 
 General Philosophy
 
 The honesty, integrity and sound judgment of LiveReel Media Corporation (“LiveReel ” or the “Company”) Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Controller and persons performing similar functions (collectively the “Principal Officers”) is fundamental to our reputation and success.  The professional and ethical conduct of the Principal Officers is essential to the proper functioning and success of LiveReel.
 
 Applicability
 
 This Code of Ethics shall apply to LiveReel’s Principal Officers.
 
 Standards of Conduct
 
 To the best of their knowledge and ability, the Principal Officers shall:
 
 ·
act with honesty and integrity, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships;
 
 ·
provide full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that LiveReel files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and in other public communications made by LiveReel;
 
 ·
comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations;
 
 ·
promote the prompt internal reporting of violations of this Code of Ethics to LiveReel’s board of directors and outside legal counsel;
 
 ·
respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of employment;
  ·
maintain the skills necessary and relevant to LiveReel’s needs; and
 
 ·
proactively promote ethical and honest behavior among employees of LiveReel and its subsidiary.
 
 All Principal Officers are expected to adhere to the LiveReel Code of Ethics.  Any violation of this Code of Ethics will be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including dismissal from the Company and prosecution under the law.  The board of directors shall have responsibility for administration of this Code of Ethics and shall have the sole and absolute discretionary authority to approve any deviation or waiver from this Code of Ethics for Principal Officers.  In the event that a waiver of, modification of and/or change to this Code of Ethics is approved and granted, then the notice of the waiver, modification, and/or change shall be disclosed as may be required by SEC rules or the rules of any exchange on which the securities of the Company are then trading.
#### Terry Lynn BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-40333

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 29, 2011.

*931Terry Lynn Brown, Midway, TX, pro se.

Elizabeth Alisse Goettert, Tommy Lee Skaggs, Assistant Attorney Generals, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In 2004, Terry Lynn Brown, now Texas prisoner #786778, was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. The district court dismissed Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application with prejudice. We granted Brown’s motion for a certificate of appeala-bility as to his speedy trial claim.

Federal habeas relief will not be granted on a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state adjudication “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d); *see Williams v. Taylor,*529 U.S. 362, 412-13, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). This court ultimately “review[s] for reasonableness the state court’s ultimate decision, not every jot of its reasoning.” *Santellan v. Cockrell,*271 F.3d 190, 193 (5th Cir.2001). Although the district court did not consider Brown’s speedy trial claim, we may affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record. *Emery v. Johnson,*139 F.3d 191, 195 (5th Cir.1997).

Brown argues that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated due to the lengthy delay between the time of his arrest and his trial. Even if it is assumed that the speedy trial period began when the hold was placed upon Brown based upon the initial arrest warrant issued in this case, Brown has not made a sufficient showing to warrant relief under § 2254(d). Despite his assertion that the speedy trial period continued until the time of his trial, the period between dismissal of the initial arrest warrant and the filing of the indictment was not relevant for speedy trial purposes. *See United States v. MacDonald,*456 U.S. 1, 7, 102 S.Ct. 1497, 71 L.Ed.2d 696 (1982); *United States v. Jackson,*549 F.3d 963, 971 (5th Cir.2008). Application of the test set forth in *Barker v. Wingo,*407 U.S. 514, 530-32, *93292 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), to this case based upon the relevant speedy trial period reveals that Brown has not shown that he warrants relief under § 2254(d) on this basis. *See Amos v. Thornton,*646 F.3d 199, 205-09 (5th Cir.2011); *Goodrum v. Quarterman,*547 F.3d 249, 257-66 (5th Cir.2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.