alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.30


 


BODY CENTRAL ACQUISITION CORP.


 


Jerrold
Rosenbaum


6730
Epping Forest Way North


Jacksonville,
FL  32217


 


September       ,
2010


 


Re:          Body Central Acquisition
Corp. Board of Directors


 


Dear
Jerrold:


 


We
look forward to your continued service on the Board of Directors (the “Board”)
of Body Central Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).  By this letter, we would like to confirm our
mutual understanding of the terms of your service, including certain details
regarding your Board compensation. 
Assuming the Company completes its contemplated initial public offering
(the “IPO”), you have agreed to continue to
serve as a member of the Board.  Your
Board service and fees payable for that service as described below shall
continue for so long as you continue to serve as a director of the Company.


 


Going
forward, while serving on the Board (and any of its committees), you will
receive compensation for your service, contingent upon completion of the IPO,
as follows:


 


·                  An annual fee of $25,000 in cash, payable
monthly in arrears, for your service as a member of the Board.


 


In
addition, both before and after the IPO, you will also be reimbursed for your
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses associated with your attendance at any
meeting of the Board or its committees upon presentation of appropriately
itemized documentation of the expenses as the Company may reasonably request.


 


Further,
you will also receive compensation for your service to the Company unrelated to
your services on the Board, contingent upon completion of the IPO, as follows:


 


·                  An annual fee of $25,000 in cash, payable in
monthly arrears, for your assessment and review of potential store locations;
and


 


·                  A per day fee of $1,000 in cash, payable
promptly after each visit, for each day that you conduct a real estate visit or
visits to assess store locations.


 


This
letter contains all the understandings between the parties hereto and
supersedes all undertakings and agreements, whether oral or in writing,
previously entered into between you and the Company (and its affiliates).


 

















 


We
look forward to continuing a mutually rewarding relationship.  Please sign below to acknowledge and agree to
the terms of this letter.


 


	
   

  	
  Very
  truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BODY
  CENTRAL ACQUISITION CORP.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  B.
  Allen Weinstein, its

  
	
   

  	
  President
  and Chief Executive Officer

  



 


 


Enclosures


 


cc:           The Board of Directors


 


 


ACKNOWLEDGED
AND AGREED:


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Jerrold
  Rosenbaum
! "!#$%&$#'!#(&)*(#"  +(#&"!##,"!# &	"-.#!$%/000000000000000000000000000

&+$!1$#!0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  2%!+$($ 3	 2 3	 34%$(!#5!%,$%%6"7 2%!+3$#-''8""8,,/000000000002%!+3(&.#!

4	292:;94 4%$(!#!%,$%%6".&*'((!7

&+$!1$#!*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

NTPDFC>SE@AC>EBUVW=XYZQ>=[DF\>  GHIJ]ILDM

UVW=X^_>?\>FC`YZQ>=[DF\>   GHIJ]IL[M

 *%*'&(00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  

64&"*#4%$(!#!%,.&"*#.&*'((!7

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJaLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JadLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFUeDO=QDccGHIJaLTM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJdLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JadLfM

SEP>QW>?APD@AP>g?ETZC@SE@ABACD@AEF  GHIJ]aLDM

UeDOUZf_AccAEFGdhJR

  $%4&"*#$'i0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

4&"*#&'($!"	!"#!(-.&"*#&%$#"*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(/

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JaHLDM

W>QAc@AF\LSEXO>FVF@>?>c@M   GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JaHLfM

NOO?EPDQN_>FT_>F@c@E>FZ_>?D@>TD\?ACZQ@Z?DQO?ETZC@cGHIJHLDMlGHIJRLDM

mSEFnjD@>?ADQN\?ACZQ@Z?DQYZQ>=[DF\>oGHIJHLfMLRM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

  $%$'-(/ 4&"*#-(/< #"i000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*%*'&(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

pqrstuvwsxyqz{{|

}

~qrv|qrvsx



}

ttrpuqrsxy|xrsv
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



(1) The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2006 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Date:  May 31, 2006 |  |  |                                                   
|------------------- |  |  | --------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | /s/  Marti Morfitt                                
|                    |  |  |                                                   
|                    |  |  | Marti Morfitt, President & Chief Executive Officer





|Date:  May 31, 2006 |  |  |                                                                                         
|------------------- |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | /s/  Samuel E. Reinkensmeyer                                                            
|                    |  |  |                                                                                         
|                    |  |  | Samuel E. Reinkensmeyer
Vice President of Finance, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer



---
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1223

Ethane Option - Conway Ethane (in-well) - OPIS

DESCRIPTION

Monthly cash settled put and call options published by OPIS for the location specified in Floating Price A. 

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the OPIS Conway Ethane (in-well)

price for each business day that it is determined during the contract month.

OPTION CHARACTERISTICS

TRADING UNIT

On expiration of a Call Option, the value will be the difference between the average daily settlement price 

during the calendar month of the first nearby OPIS Conway Ethane (in-well) (as described in Floating Price 

A) and the strike price, or zero whichever is greater. On expiration of a Put Option, the value will be the 

difference between the strike price and the average daily settlement price during the calendar month of the 

first nearby OPIS Conway Ethane (in-well) (as described in Floating Price A), or zero whichever is greater.

TYPE OPTION

Cash-settled European-Style Average Price option which cannot be exercised prior to expiration.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be U.S. gallons. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity multiplied by the 

settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in dollars and cents per gallon and prices shall be in multiples of $0.001 per gallon. The 

minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no maximum price fluctuation. 

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination of posting for a 

contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price will be the Floating Price calculated for 

each contract month.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 669

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. CV-12-1093

BROOK A. ROGERS

APPELLANT

V.

DENA A. ROGERS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered November 13, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

FIFTEENTH DIVISION

[NO. DR-2004-720]

HONORABLE RICHARD A.

MOORE, JR., JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

Brook Rogers appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court order requiring, among other

things, that he pay $40,709.85 in marital-retirement benefits to Dena Rogers, his former wife. 

We will not decide this case on the merits at this point; instead, we order rebriefing. 

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) (2013) provides in pertinent part:

(5) Abstract. The appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the

transcripts (stenographically reported material) in the record. Information in a

transcript is material if the information is essential for the appellate court to confirm

its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.

. . . .

(B) Form. The abstract shall be an impartial condensation, without comment or

emphasis, of the transcript (stenographically reported material). The abstract must not

reproduce the transcript verbatim. No more than one page of a transcript shall be

abstracted without giving a record page reference. In abstracting testimony, the first

person (“I”) rather than the third person (“He or She”) shall be used. The

question-and-answer format shall not be used. In the extraordinary situations where

a short exchange cannot be converted to a first-person narrative without losing

important meaning, however, the abstract may include brief quotations from the
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 669

transcript.

Brook’s abstract does not comply with the rule because substantial portions of it contain

verbatim reproductions of the transcript or appear in question-and-answer format. 

We therefore order Brook to file a compliant substituted brief within fifteen days from

this opinion’s date. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). After Brook’s substituted brief has been

served, Dena may revise or substitute her brief within fifteen days, if she so chooses. See id. 

Brook should also review our rules to ensure that his substituted brief is free of additional

deficiencies. A subsequent failure to file a compliant brief may result in this court affirming

the circuit court’s order or judgment due to noncompliance. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3);

Carter v. Cline, 2011 Ark. 266.

Rebriefing ordered. 

GRUBER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.

Robertson Law Firm, PLLC, by: Robert “Chris” Oswalt, for appellant.

Stephen Cobb, for appellee.

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-63564) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-87882,
33-87776, 33-89382, 333-02340, 333-06303, 333-16963, 333-20853, 333-52603,
333-80861, 333-39462, 333-57670, 333-63550 and 333-97101) of Applix, Inc. of our
report dated January 24, 2001 relating to the financial statements, which
appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 31, 2003
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 of International Industrial Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ David RogersDavid RogersChief Executive Officer/s/ David RogersDavid RogersChief Financial OfficerDated: May 12, 2011   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to David Rogers, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Robert E. Walsh, Respondent, v Richard F. Kresge, Appellant.

Submitted May 3, 2010;

decided June 15, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
# C_2010132EN.01001901.xml

| 21.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/19

---

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

2010/C 132/08

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block T1 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245). The area in question is to be designated block segment F13b.

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to the Directive mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block T1 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

Block T1 covers an area of 1,3 km2.

2

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to:

Official Journal of the European Union

| The Minister for Economic Affairs |
| --- |
| For the attention of J.C. De Groot, Director for the Energy Market |
| ALP/562 |
| Bezuidenhoutseweg 30 |
| Postbus 20101 |
| 2500 EC Den Haag |
| NEDERLAND |

The Minister for Economic Affairs

For the attention of J.C. De Groot, Director for the Energy Market

ALP/562

Bezuidenhoutseweg 30

Postbus 20101

2500 EC Den Haag

NEDERLAND

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken no later than 12 months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained by calling Mr E.J. Hoppel on the following telephone number: +31 703797088.

---
MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE, LLC

400 South 4th Street | 130 Grain Exchange Building | Minneapolis, MN 55415

612-321-7101

mgex.com

Via Portal Submission October 20, 2023

 MGEX Submission No. 23-58

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments Pursuant to Regulation 40.6(d)

Dear Secretary Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Exchange Act Section 5c and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Regulation 

40.6(d), the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, LLC (“MGEX”) submits this Weekly Notification of the following 

rule amendments made effective during the week of October 9, 2023. Effective October 11, 2023, MGEX 

made the following non-substantive Rule corrections. Please note Chapter 85 which governs Bitcoin 

Futures and Chapter 86 which governs TINI Bitcoin Futures are pending implementation in the MGEX 

Rulebook until a product launch date is determined.

• Rules 85.13. and Rule 86.13. were clarified by removing the words “respective,” “or spread,” and 

“only during the regular Hours of Trading.”

• Rules 85.13. and Rule 86.13. incorrectly listed 3:58pm as the Trade at Settlement cutoff and were

corrected to list Trade at Settlement transaction availability Sunday – Friday 5 p.m. to 3 p.m.

A copy of the current MGEX Rulebook reflecting these changes is available at http://www.mgex.com under 

the “Rules & Regulations” tab. If there are any questions regarding this submission, please contact me at 

(612) 321-7188 or randerson@mgex.com. 

Sincerely, 

Ryan Anderson

Associate Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David C. Scott, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of 3PAR Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 3PAR Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                              
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 8, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ DAVID C. SCOTT                                                           
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | David C. Scott                                                               
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Adriel G. Lares, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of 3PAR Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of 3PAR Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                    
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 8, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ ADRIEL G. LARES                                                                
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Adriel G. Lares                                                                    
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to 3PAR Inc. and will be retained by 3PAR Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification
accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing
**EXHIBIT
23**
 
 **CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement of the Form
S-8, File No, 333-122353 of our report dated March 4, 2005 on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Dwango North America Corp. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2004 and for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003,
respectively, included in this Annual Report on Form 10K. We also consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in this Registration Statement
and Prospectus.
 
 Eisner
LLP
 
 New York,
New York
 March 30,
2005
FOR PUBLICATION

JUDICIAL COUNCIL

 OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE COMPLAINT OF 

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

Nos. 07-89142, 07-89144, 

08-89012, 08-89030, 08-90029, 

08-90030, 08-90031, 08-90032,

and 08-90033

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Five misconduct complaints have been filed against a circuit judge, four

district judges and four magistrate judges. Complainant, a pro se prisoner, filed

several civil rights actions and habeas petitions in district court. The subject

judges were assigned to those matters. 

Complainant alleges that the judges made improper substantive and

procedural rulings. These claims relate directly to the merits of the judges’ rulings

and must therefore be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii); Misconduct

Rule 4(c)(1); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B). A misconduct complaint is not a

proper vehicle for challenging the merits of a judge’s rulings. See In re Charge of

Judicial Misconduct, 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 1982).

Complainant alleges that the judges were biased and discriminated against

FILED

JAN 05 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
page 2

him on the basis of race. Complainant also alleges that the judges conspired

against him. But complainant hasn’t provided any objectively verifiable proof (for

example, names of witnesses, recorded documents or transcripts) to support his

allegations of bias, racism and conspiracy. Because there isn’t sufficient evidence

to raise an inference that misconduct occurred, these charges must be dismissed. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Misconduct Rule 4(c)(3); Judicial-Conduct Rule

11(c)(1)(D). 

Complainant further alleges that several of the judges improperly delayed

rulings in his cases. Delay is not a proper subject of a misconduct complaint unless

the circumstances are extraordinary, such as “where the delay is habitual, is

improperly motivated or is the product of improper animus or prejudice toward a

particular litigant, or, possibly, where the delay is of such an extraordinary or

egregious character as to constitute a clear dereliction of judicial responsibilities.” 

Commentary on Misconduct Rule 1. Such is not the case here. 

Complainant’s allegations against court staff must be dismissed because this

complaint procedure applies only to federal judges. See Misconduct Rule 1(d).

Complainant has filed at least sixteen previous misconduct complaints, all of

which have been dismissed because complainant’s allegations were conclusory

and/or related to the merits of the subject judges’ rulings. Complainant is therefore
page 3

ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by an order requiring him

to obtain leave before filing any further misconduct complaints. See JudicialConduct Rule 10(a); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 527 F.3d 792,

796–97 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008). Complainant has thirty days from the filing

of this order to file a response, which will be transmitted to the Judicial Council for

its consideration. 

DISMISSED and COMPLAINANT ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE.