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








Exhibit 10.2.2


    
SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION FOR THE
COMPANY'S NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS






On March 9, 2016, the Senior Executive Compensation Committee of the board of directors of Employers Mutual Casualty Company (the Company's parent company) in its capacity as administrator of the stock incentive plan, made a small modification to the vesting terms of the restricted stock that will be granted to the directors of the Company on May 19, 2016.  Following is an updated summary of the compensation to be paid to non-employee directors, effective as of May 19, 2016 (the date of the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders).  


Compensation for non-employee directors includes an annual retainer of $50,000, board and committee meeting attendance fees of $2,000 per meeting, reimbursement of travel and business expenses and an award of 500 shares of the Company's common stock in the form of restricted stock.  The restricted stock will vest ratably over a period of three years and is subject to forfeiture upon retirement from the board if the director has not reached the age of 75 years.  Upon the attainment of 75 years of age, all unvested shares of restricted stock will vest if the director is still an active director.  In addition, the chair of the Board of Directors shall receive an annual fee of $20,000, the chair of the audit committee shall receive an annual fee of $17,000, the chairs of all other board committees shall receive an annual fee of $4,500 and the chairs of each board committee shall receive an additional $1,000 committee meeting fee for each meeting at which such director serves as chair.  Non-employee directors are also entitled to receive $1,000 ($1,500 for the chair of the audit committee) for each special audit committee meeting held primarily for the purpose of considering revisions to the Company's operating income guidance for the year, $2,000 and reimbursement of travel and business expense for each day that they attend an approved educational program or seminar, $2,000 for each webinar and similar computer-based educational program attended lasting more than two hours, and $250 for each webinar and similar computer-based educational program attended lasting two hours or less.  The non-employee directors are also eligible to participate in Employers Mutual Casualty Company’s Non-Employee Director Stock Purchase Plan.  Under this plan, directors are allowed to purchase the Company’s common stock in an amount up to 100 percent of their annual retainer at a price equal to 75 percent of the fair market value of the common stock on the purchase date.
# FCM Data June 2013

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF June 30,&KFF0000 &K0000002013FROM REPORTS FILED BY August 02,&KFF0000 &K0000002013	&P of &N
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Nidec Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 12, 2005

/s/   Shibenobu NagamoriShigenobu Nagamori
President, Chief Executive Officer and Representative Director
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 KENT M. WEISNER,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. NO. 31,832

5 SAN JUAN COUNTY NM BOARD 

6 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and

7 OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK,

8 Defendant-Appellee.

9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY

10 Judge Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge

11 Kent M.Weisner

12 Kirtland, NM

13 Pro se Appellant

14 Douglas A. Echols

15 Aztec, NM

16 for Appellee

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 GARCIA, Judge.
2

1 Plaintiff is appealing, pro se, from a district court order dismissing his

2 complaint. We issued a calendar notice proposing to dismiss. Plaintiff has responded

3 with a memorandum in opposition. Not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments, we

4 dismiss the appeal.

5 Plaintiff is appealing from a district court order dismissing his complaint. The

6 judgment was filed on December 1, 2011. [RP 63] On December 7, 2011, Plaintiff

7 filed a motion to reconsider that order. [RP 64] Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from

8 the underlying order on December 1, 2011. [RP 67] There is no indication in the

9 record proper that the district court ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and

10 Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition indicates that no ruling has been entered. The

11 district court was required to rule on the post-judgment motion and it was not deemed

12 denied by the passage of time. See Rule 1-059(E) NMRA; Albuquerque Redi-Mix,

13 Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2007-NMSC-051, ¶ 15, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99

14 (holding that a Rule 1-059(E) motion is not subject to automatic denial). Thus, we

15 conclude that Plaintiff’s appeal is premature without an order denying his motion. See

16 generally Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison, 113 N.M. 231, 236, 824 P.2d 1033,

17 1038 (1992) (discussing principles of finality). 

18 For these reasons, we dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal as premature. 

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

1 ________________________________

2 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

3 WE CONCUR:

4 _______________________________

5 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

6 _______________________________

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of IRSA
Inversiones y Representaciones S.A. (the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), Eduardo S. Elsztain, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and 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.








IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones S.A.October
31,
2018.
By:
/s/ Eduardo
S. ElsztainEduardo
S. ElsztainChief
Executive Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002),
I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of ATC Technology Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Date:  February
25, 2010






/s/
      Todd R. PetersTodd
      R. Peters, Chief Executive Officer





This
certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.  This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
reference.
#### Harvey LAURIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-55282.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*617Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 08, 2006.

Harvey Lauria, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Thomas Quinn, Esq., Nokes, Davis, & Quinn, Laguna Beach, CA, Lewis P. Per-ling, Esq., Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Harvey Lauria appeals pro se the grant of an unopposed motion for summary judgment in favor of Equifax Information Services, LLC. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. *See Buono v. Norton,*371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm. Equifax met its burden to show that there was an absence of evidence to support Lauria’s claim of negligent and willful violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1785.1*et seq. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Lauria failed to present specific admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial. *Id.,*477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

L.E.R., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-715

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed June 19, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Teresa Dees, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000854066
<NAME> GEODYNE INSTITUTIONAL/PENSION ENERGY INCOME P-3 LIMITED PART
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         328,070
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               672,146
<PP&E>                                      11,407,767
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,145,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,934,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,934,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,934,494
<SALES>                                      1,262,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,423,012
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,861,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (438,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (438,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (438,478)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# QCourt of**§ppeaI~** 

# for tbejfeberaI**~irtuit**

STACY CARSON AND 

### AMY CARSON, AS LEGAL GUARDIANS FOR KIT CARSON, Petitioners-Appellants, 

### v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent-Appellee.

2010-5089 Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 02-VV-873, Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.


### ORDER The court notes that the parties have not filed a status report. The court's February 3,2011 order directed the Secretary to inform this court within 30 days ofthe disposition of Cloer how this appeal should proceed. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT:CARSON v. HHS 2
The Secretary is directed to file a status report within 14 days ofthe date offiling ofthis order. The appellants may also respond within that time.FOR THE COURT 

## DEC 21 2012 Date

cc: David P. Matthews, Esq. Heather L. Pearlman, Esq. 

### s21 lsIJan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

U.s.

## COURf~~PEALS FOR THEFEDt:RHr.mCU1T 

### DEC 21 l012 JANHORBAlY CLERK
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00003

- CR

J ASON K EITH S LOAS

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ O n Appe al from the 271st District

Court

of Wise County ( CR22167 )

February 9, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice

Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial c ourt’s jud gment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: HUGH P. KING 

DOCKET NUMBER: 220 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 220 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Hugh P. King 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that during the period from on or about July 17 through 

July 20, 1972, Hugh P. King manipulated the price of the 1972 July oats future 

on the Chicago Board of Trade. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when there has been a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. A determination is considered as having been made when a 

decision of the Administrative Law Judge becomes final or, after appeal, a 

decision is made by the Judicial Officer of the Department. Complaints are 

filed in the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and 

are a matter of public record. Pending disposition of a complaint, it is the 

policy of the CEA not to comment or elaborate on charges contained therein or to 

discuss evidence on which it is based. 

A public hearing on the complaint will be held before the Administrative Law 

Judge in Chicago, Illinois, at a date and time to be specified at a later date. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### James Jefferson KENNER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J. MERCER; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 11-15538.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 11, 2012.

James Jefferson Kenner, Carson City, NV, pro se.

Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Neva*743da Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner James Jefferson Kenner appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging, among others claims, denial of due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kenner’s due process claim because he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he received timely written notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard before being found guilty of violating prison rules at a disciplinary hearing. *See Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (explaining due process owed to prisoners facing a disciplinary charge).

Kenner’s “statement of facts” in response to the appellees’ answering brief is construed as his reply brief.

Kenner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Issues not expressly addressed in Ken-ner’s opening brief are waived. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JADA CORPORATION 

DOCKET NUMBER: 157 

DATE: JANUARY 30, 1969 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 157 

Name: Jada Corporation 

Effective January 30, 1969 

Order 

United Commodity Traders of Iowa, Inc., also d/b/a Jada Corpora-tion, United 

Commodity Traders of Iowa, Inc. (incorporated on September 3, 1968) and James B. 

Pepper shall Cease and desist from: (1) failing to keep in segregated account 

the amount of money, securities and property which must be in segregated account 

in order to comply with the requirements of section 4d(2) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d(2)); and (2) failing to prepare and maintain an 

accurate record as of the close of the market on each business day of the amount 

of money, securities, and property which must be in segregated account in order 

to comply with the requirements of section 4d(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act 

(7 U.S.C. 6d(2)). 

A copy of this Decision and Order shall be served on each of the parties. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

JAN 30 1969 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1093 

Expressing support for designation of March as ‘‘National Whole Child 

Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 22, 2010 

Mr. MORAN of Virginia submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of March as ‘‘National 

Whole Child Month’’. 

Whereas each student should be able to enter school healthy 

and to learn about and practice a healthy lifestyle; 

Whereas, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, the percentage of overweight children 

ages 6 to 11 has doubled and the number of overweight 

adolescents has tripled over the last 2 decades; 

Whereas each student should be able to learn in an intellectually challenging environment that is physically and emotionally safe; 

Whereas according to the Indicators of School Crime and 

Safety report of 2009, 32 percent of middle and high 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1093 IH 

school students reported being bullied during the 2007 

school year; 

Whereas each student should be able to be actively engaged 

in learning and connected to the school and broader community; 

Whereas a study on high school student engagement conducted by the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy 

at the Indiana University School of Education found that 

half of high school students feel they are an important 

part of their school community; 

Whereas each student deserves access to personalized learning and is supported by qualified, caring adults; 

Whereas the same Indiana University study reported that 

more than 20 percent of students say there is no adult 

at their school who cares about them and knows them 

well; 

Whereas each graduate deserves to be challenged academically and prepared for success in college or further study, 

and for employment in a global economy; 

Whereas according to the most recently published information 

from the Condition of Education on the availability of advanced courses in United States high schools, more than 

25 percent of students do not have access to a single advanced course in mathematics, English, science, or foreign language in their high school; 

Whereas another student drops out every nine seconds in the 

United States; 

Whereas the objective of the ASCD whole child approach to 

education ensures that every child is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged; and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1093 IH 

Whereas March would be an appropriate month to designate 

as ‘‘National Whole Child Month’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National 

3 Whole Child Month’’; 

4 (2) recognizes that ensuring all children are 

5 healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged is 

6 a national priority; and 

7 (3) encourages parents, educators, and commu8 nity members to support and provide a whole child 

9 approach to education for each student. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Harry Clark.

January 11, 1937.

The rule to show cause herein is discharged and the motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Exhibit 31.1
       a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ SANDRA B. GILLESPIE

Sandra B. GillespieActing Co-Chief Executive Officer, Senior Vice President