alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
a6236564ex10gg.htm


Exhibit (10)(gg)



 


J. ALEXANDER’S CORPORATION (THE “COMPANY”)


 


SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION


 


I. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive additional compensation for serving as directors of the Company. The following table sets forth current rates of cash compensation for the Company’s non-employee directors.



	  	  	  	  	  
	
RETAINERS

	  	
2009

	  
	 
	
Board retainer

	  	
$

	
15,000

	  





 


In addition, non-employee directors are paid a fee of $1,500 for each attended meeting of the Board or any Committee of which he or she is a member. Each director who is not also an employee of the Company is eligible for grants of non-qualified stock options under the Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive Plan. Generally, directors who are not employees of the Company have been awarded options to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock upon joining the Board and options to purchase 1,000 shares of Common Stock for each succeeding year of service, with the exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of grant. Pursuant to the terms of the Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, no non-employee director is eligible for a grant of incentive stock options under the Plan.


 


II. EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION. The following table sets forth the 2010 annual base salaries and the fiscal 2009 performance bonuses provided to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and other highly compensated executive officers (the “Named Officers”).



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	
FISCAL 2009


	
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

	  	
2010 SALARY  

	  	
BONUS AMOUNT


	  
	
Lonnie J. Stout II

	  	
$

	
387,280

	  	  	
$

	
—

	  
	
R. Gregory Lewis

	  	
$

	
202,000

	  	  	
$

	
—

	  
	
J. Michael Moore

	  	
$

	
159,650

	  	  	
$

	
—

	  
	
Mark A. Parkey

	  	
$

	
159,650

	  	  	
$

	
—

	  





 


Given the current economic environment, the Company determined not to establish a cash incentive bonus program for executive officers based on performance targets for 2010.


 


The Named Officers are eligible to receive incentive awards pursuant to the Company’s equity incentive plans.


 


III. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. The foregoing information is summary in nature. Additional information regarding director and Named Officer compensation will be provided in the Company’s proxy statement to be filed in connection with the 2010 annual meeting of shareholders.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6126 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6126

  To provide for 100 percent expensing for capital property placed in 
        service on or after September 8, 2010, and before 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2010

Mr. Garamendi introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for 100 percent expensing for capital property placed in 
        service on or after September 8, 2010, and before 2012.

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

SECTION 1. 100 PERCENT EXPENSING FOR CAPITAL PROPERTY PLACED IN SERVICE 
              ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 8, 2010, AND BEFORE 2012.

    (a) In General.--Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to election to expense certain depreciable business assets) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Special Rules for 100 Percent Expensing Period.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of property placed in 
        service on or after September 8, 2010, and before January 1, 
        2012, subsection (b) shall not apply.
            ``(2) Application of section for periods prior to september 
        8.--In the case of any taxable year which includes September 8, 
        2010, for the portion of such taxable year prior to September 
        8, each of the dollar amounts in subsections (b) and (e) shall 
        be reduced by the amount which bears the same ratio to such 
        dollar amount as the number of days in such portion of the 
        taxable year bears to 365.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to property placed in service on or after September 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.27






AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO WARRANTS








THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO WARRANTS,dated as of August 21, 2009 (this “Amendment”), is issued by nFinanSe Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), to ____________________ (the “Holder”).





RECITALS





A.  WHEREAS, the Company, the Holder and other accredited investors are parties to that certain Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 21, 2009 (the “August 2009 SPA”), and;





B.  WHEREAS, in consideration for the Holder’s participation in the August 2009 SPA and entrance into and execution of this Amendment, the Company agreed to amend any and all warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock currently held by the Holder (such warrants as listed on Schedule A hereto, the “Warrants”) such that the exercise price (the “Exercise Price”) of the Warrants shall be reduced to $0.30 per share.





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.           The Exercise Price set forth in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the Warrants is hereby amended to be $0.30.





2.           Any provision of the Warrants which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Amendment shall be deemed amended to effectuate the intention expressed herein.  Except as hereby amended, the Warrants shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first written above.







NFINANSE INC.By:      /s/ Raymond P. SpringerName: Raymond P. SpringerTitle:   Executive Vice President























Schedule A


The Warrants









[__________________






















































-2-
---

Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-160822) and Form S-3 (No.
333-164605, No. 333-169815 and No., 333-163395) of American Lorain Corporation
of our report dated March 22, 2012 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of American Lorain Corporation, which report appears in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A of American Lorain Corporation of the year ended December
31, 2011.

/s/ Samuel H. Wong & Co.,
LLPSamuel H. Wong & Co.,
LLPCertified Public Accountants

San Mateo, California
  May 8, 2012

---
EXHIBIT 32


   CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Christina M. Strauch, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief
Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of Rim  Holdings  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  has executed this  certification in connection with the filing with
the  Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Company's  Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended  September 30, 2003 (the  "Report").  The  undersigned
hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this certificate as of the 5th
day of January, 2004.


/s/ Christina M. Strauch
--------------------------------------------
Christina M. Strauch, Chairman of the Board
of Directors, Chief Executive Officer,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### KUNZMANN v. NEW YORK & R. B. R. CO.

(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.

May 28, 1894.)

Carriers of Passengers—Proof of Relation.

In an action for personal injuries received while plaintiff was a passenger on a. railroad train, the evidence is sufficient to show that defendant was the carrier, where it appears that plaintiff purchased her ticket from defendant, and that the car in which she was riding had defendant’s name on it.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Lena Kunzmann against the New York & Rockaway Beach Railroad Company. There was a judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before CLEMEHT, C. J., and YAH WYCK, J.

Hurd & Grim, for appellant.

W. C. Beecher, for respondent.

CLEMENT, C. J.

We have carefully read the record on the present appeal, and conclude that the testimony was sufficient to require the submission of the case to the jury. The plaintiff proved that the defendant is a common carrier of passengers between Flat-bush avenue station in Brooklyn and Eockaway Beach; that the defendant issued to plaintiff an excursion ticket from Bedford station to Eockaway Beach, and that on her return to Bedford station she was injured by reason of negligence of the employes upon the train; that the cars of the train by which she returned had upon them the name of the Hew York & Eockaway Beach Eailroad. The proof seems to bring the case within the authority of Wylde v. Railroad Co., 53 N. Y. 156. This case was reversed on the former appeal *(27*N. Y. Supp. 132) on the ground that there was no proof that the defendant ran, or had the right to run, trains on Atlantic avenue, and that there was no proof that the train on which the plaintiff was injured was in charge of the employes of the defendant. This proof has now been supplied, and the plaintiff made out a prima facie case. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10900

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIE LOUIS EVERITT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EVERETT YOUNG, Judge, 297th District Court,

Tarrant County, Texas, 

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-573-Y

- - - - - - - - - -

April 18, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of

appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). Appellant argues that the state court judge failed to

provide him with a trial record and transcript, thereby denying

him access to the courts. Appellant seeks damages and

declaratory and injunctive relief requiring appellee to provide

him with the trial record and transcripts because he is indigent. 

“Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from claims 
No. 95-10900

- 2 -

for damages arising out of acts performed in the exercise of

their judicial functions.” Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284

(5th Cir. 1994). Appellant’s claim for declaratory and

injunctive relief amounts to a request for a writ of mandamus

against a state official which is not authorized by § 1983. See

Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276

(5th Cir. 1973).

We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion

and appellant’s brief, and conclude that appellant has failed to

raise a constitutional issue. Appellant’s appeal is frivolous

and is DISMISSED. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution appellant that any

additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, appellant is

further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have

been previously decided by this court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PROVIDED BY ERNST YOUNG, LLP AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                         491,665
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,245,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,833,000       
<INVENTORY>                                 11,975,875
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,378,871
<PP&E>                                      33,857,956
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,466,622
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             116,359,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,704,012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                (42,989,991)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               116,359,041
<SALES>                                     81,594,201
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            81,594,201
<CGS>                                       58,844,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               58,844,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,877,727
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,837,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,314,670
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,647,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,667,670
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,667,670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas
Chaffin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) 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/ H. Douglas Chaffin
-------------------------------------
H. Douglas Chaffin
Chief Executive Officer
March 12, 2008


                                       68
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 01-467(E)

SEGUNDO MARIANO, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and IVERS and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

On October 22, 2003, the Court issued its opinion in the instant appeal. Mariano v. Principi,

17 Vet.App. 305 (2003). In accordance with its opinion, the Court entered its judgment and issued

its mandate on November 4, 2003, which was 10 days after the date on which the opinion issued.

Id. at 318; see U.S. VET. APP. R. 2 (suspension of rules), 35 (motion for reconsideration), 36 (entry

of judgment), 41(a) (issuance of mandate). On January 22, 2004, the Court received the appellant's

application for fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d). On January 29, 2004, the Clerk of the Court ordered the appellant to show cause why the

application should not be dismissed as untimely. The appellant filed his response on February 6,

2004. 

Upon review of the record of proceedings in this appeal, the Court finds that the appellant's

EAJA application was timely submitted to the Court on January 22, 2004. The Court's November 4,

2003, judgment became final on January 5, 2004, that is, 60 days after the entry of judgment, see

38 U.S.C. § 7291(a); FED.R. APP.P. 4(a)(1)(B); and the deadline for filing an EAJA application was

February 4, 2004, that is, 30 days after the Court's judgment became final, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d)(1)(B). See Strouth v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 502, 504 (1996) (per curiam order) (noting that

"[u]nless there is an order on consent remanding a case under U.S. VET. APP. R. 41(b), the 30-day

period to file an EAJA application with the Court begins to run when the judgment becomes final

and not when the Court issues its mandate"). 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that the appellant's January 22, 2004, EAJA application is accepted for filing as

of the date of its receipt by the Court. It is further 
2

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, the Secretary file a

response to the appellant's EAJA application. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 39(b). The appellant may

thereafter file a reply as provided for in the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure. See U.S. VET.

APP. R. 39(c). It is further 

ORDERED that the EAJA application is returned to the single judge for disposition.

DATED: August 13, 2004 PER CURIAM.
Exhibit 21.1
 Subsidiaries of the Registrant
 State or Other Jurisdiction ofName of Subsidiary *
    
    Incorporation or OrganizationCatapult Communications Corporation
    
    NevadaCommunication Machinery Corporation
    
    CaliforniaG3 Nova Technology, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaIxia Europe Limited
    
    United KingdomIxia Federal Systems, Inc.
    
    DelawareIxia K.K.
    
    JapanS.C. Ixia SRL
    
    RomaniaIxia Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeIxia Technologies Private Limited
    
    IndiaIxia (Beijing) Trading Company Limited
    
    ChinaCatapult Communications Corporation SubsidiariesIxia Australia Pty. Ltd.
    
    AustraliaIxia Communications Canada Limited
    
    CanadaIxia Technologies International Limited (formerly Catapult Communications International Limited)
    
    IrelandIxia Communications Kabushiki Kaisha (formerly Catapult Communications Kabushiki Kaisha)
    
    JapanIxia Technologies Europe Limited (formerly Catapult Communications Limited)
    
    United KingdomIxia Technologies (Shanghai) Company Limited (formerly Catapult Communications (China) Corporation Limited)
    
    ChinaIxia Korea, Inc.
    
    South KoreaIxiacom Technologies Sdn. Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaCatapult Communications Applications Development, Inc.
    
    PhilippinesCatapult Communications Bangalore Private Limited
    
    India
 
 *
    
    The subsidiaries of the Registrant do not do business under any name other than as listed above.
Exhibit 32.02    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 Friendly Energy Exploration (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald L. Trapp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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/Donald L. Trapp By: Donald L. Trapp Chief Financial Officer  Dated: April 16, 2013  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 12, 2015

NO. 03-13-00209-CR

Rodolfo Cisneros, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 428TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in the court’s

judgment requiring reversal. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction. 

Therefore, the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment of conviction to reflect that the “Statute 

for Offense” is “21.021(a)(1)(B), (2)(B) Penal Code.” The judgment, as modified, is affirmed. 

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          84,464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               488,665
<PP&E>                                      12,415,872
<DEPRECIATION>                               (198,125)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,875,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          441,093
<BONDS>                                      4,939,449
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,994,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,875,134
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               773,764
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               456,313
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            171,497
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,506)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   163,991
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>