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








EXHIBIT 10.2


Summary of Compensation for 
Directors of Peoples Bancorp Inc. 




The Compensation Committee believes the combination of cash and equity-based compensation (in the form of common shares) in its director compensation model promotes independent decision-making on the part of directors as the common shares have immediate value, unlike stock options or similar forms of equity-based awards.  Effective April 1, 2016, the directors, other than Mr. Sulerzyski, will receive an annual retainer of $44,800 for serving on the Board of Directors of Peoples Bancorp Inc. ("Peoples") and an annual retainer of $11,200 for serving on the Board of Directors of Peoples Bank.  In addition, an annual retainer of $20,000 will be paid to the Chairman of the Board of Peoples and an annual retainer of $5,000 will be paid to each of the Chairs of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Risk Committee and the Governance and Nominating Committee.  All retainers will be paid 40% in Peoples' common shares (with the number of common shares to be received based on the fair market value of Peoples' common shares at the time of payment) and 60% in cash and will be paid in quarterly installments.
Mr. Sulerzyski will receive no compensation as a director of Peoples or Peoples Bank during 2016.
Directors who travel a distance of 50 miles or more to attend a Board or Board committee meeting of Peoples or Peoples Bank receive a $150 travel fee.  A single travel fee of $150 is paid for multiple meetings occurring on the same day.  Directors who stay overnight to attend a meeting are reimbursed for the actual cost of their overnight accommodations.  Directors who travel a distance of 500 miles or more (round trip) to attend a Board or Board committee meeting are reimbursed for the actual cost of reasonable travel expenses including coach class airfare, car rental, and other usual and customary travel expenses in lieu of the $150 fee.  Peoples believes these fees and reimbursements are reasonable and partially offset travel expenses incurred by those directors living outside the Marietta, Ohio area, where Board and Board committee meetings are typically held.
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND v. Barbara WOODLEY and Robert Woodley.

No. 127P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Norman C. Post, Jr., George H. Whitaker, Sanford, for Woodley.

Adam H. Charnes, James J. Hefferan, Jr., Winston-Salem, for Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor-General, for State.

Jay Johnson.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 640 S.E.2d 777.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendants on the 13th day of March 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Plaintiff, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of March 2007 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
STATE v. Terraine Sanchez BYERS.

No. 69P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Terraine S. Byers, pro se.

David Roy Blackwell, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of May 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 446/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 446/2013 of 14 May 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 446/2013                     

# of 14 May 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 May 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 32(b)

 Certification of 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, James M. Sullivan, Chief Financial Officer of Solutia Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the
                  Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (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.

Dated: March 31, 2006

                                           /s/ James M. Sullivan
                                           ---------------------
                                           James M. Sullivan
                                           Chief Financial Officer




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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Solutia Inc.
and will be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 14.1

CODE OF ETHICS

Introduction

This Code of Ethics (the "Code of Ethics") has been adopted by the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Star Buffet, Inc. (the "Company") to promote honest
and ethical conduct, full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure of information in the Company's periodic and other public reports, and compliance with applicable laws, rules and
regulations by the Company's directors, officers and employees.

Senior Financial Officers

As used in this Code of Ethics, the term Senior Financial Officer means the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller or Principal
Accounting Officer, and any other persons performing similar functions for the Company.

Code of Ethics

In performing his or her duties, each director, officer and employee, including each of the Senior Financial Officers, must:

Waiver or Amendments

Any request for waiver of any provision of this Code of Ethics must be submitted in writing to the Company's Audit Committee. Waivers may only be granted by the
Audit Committee. This Code of Ethics may only be amended by the Board. Any waiver of this Code of Ethics with respect to Senior Financial Officers, and any amendment of this Code of Ethics, will be
promptly disclosed on a Current Report on Form 8-K or any other means approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Compliance and Accountability

The Audit Committee is responsible for establishing and periodically updating the Company's Code of Ethics. It is the Audit Committee's responsibility to report
known material violations of the Code to the Board and to recommend to the Board appropriate action, which may include, but is not limited to, reprimand and/or dismissal.

---



QuickLinks
Filed 8/27/13 P. v. Howe CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

JAMES CLAYTON HOWE, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B248142 

(Super. Ct. No. F281349) 

(San Luis Obispo County) 

 James Clayton Howe appeals from the order denying his petition to recall 

his 25 year-to-life sentence pursuant to the procedures set forth under Penal Code1

section 1170.126, added by Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. 

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's 

examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. 

 We advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally 

submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant filed a 

supplemental letter brief which seeks a more favorable sentence. 

 In 1999, appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or by 

means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and resisting an 

executive officer (§ 69). The trial court found true allegations of four prior “strikes” 

 1

 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 
under the Three Strikes law, and sentenced him to two concurrent prison terms of 25 

years to life. (On our own motion, we take judicial notice of People v. Howe (March 28, 

2001, B139592 [nonpub. opn.]) pursuant to Evidence Code sections 459, subdivision (a) 

and 452, subdivision (d).) 

 On November 21, 2012, appellant filed a petition to recall his sentence 

pursuant to section 1170.126. The trial court denied his petition after hearing on 

February 28, 2013. In 1979, appellant was convicted of two forcible rapes and oral 

copulation. In 1989, he was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and sexual 

battery. (Howe, supra, B139592, at p. 9.) Those offenses make him ineligible for 

resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(3).2

 We have read and considered appellant’s letter brief, his petition for recall 

of sentence and other materials from the trial court. We are satisfied that appellant's 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125 

126.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 PERREN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P.J. 

 YEGAN, J. 

 2

 See section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(C)(iv). 
Barry T. LaBarbera, Judge 

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo 

______________________________ 

 Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Bobby Davis BRASWELL v. ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY and Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company.

No. 129P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Glenn A. Barfield, Goldsboro, for Braswell.

G. Gray Wilson, Winston-Salem, Paul Janaskie, McLean, VA, for Insurance Company.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 23rd day of March 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."
STATE v. WHITE.

No. COA06-1387.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Rowan (02CRS53363, 02CRS53371, 02CRS53421).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
Exhibit 23.2
  Consent
    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
    
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-82615
    on
    Form S-3;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-81059
    on
    Form S-8;
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
    Statement
    No. 333-81059
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-81053
    on
    Form S-8;
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
    Statement
    No. 333-81053
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-71803
    on
    Form S-3;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-77407
    on
    Form S-3MEF;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-69907
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-69899
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-68183
    on
    Form S-3;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-65447
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-49113
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-96023
    on
    Form S-3;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-51978
    on
    Form S-4;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-50430
    and
    Nos. 333-50430-01
    through
    333-50430-G7
    on
    Form S-3;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-69901
    on
    Form S-8;
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
    Statement
    No. 333-69901
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-95791
    on
    Form S-8;
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
    Statement
    No. 333-95791
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-46272
    on
    Form S-8;
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
    Statement
    No. 333-46272
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-46274
    on
    Form S-8;
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
    Statement
    No. 333-46274
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-102052
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-102053
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-109411
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-109426
    and
    Nos. 333-109426-1
    through
    333-109426-261
    on Form S-4;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-111463
    and
    Nos. 333-111463-01
    through
    333-111463-263
    on Form S-4;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-117065
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-124370
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-142435
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-142436
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-159674
    on
    Form S-8;
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-159675
    on
    Form S-8; and
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-160452
    and
    Nos. 333-160452-01
    through
    333-160452-277
    Registration Statement
    No. 333-161519
    and
    Nos. 333-161519-01
    through
    333-161519-277  (Form 10-K)
  /s/
    ERNST & YOUNG LLP
  Charlotte,
    North Carolina
Exhibit 32.1

ROTATE BLACK, INC.
FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009
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, John Paulsen, certify that:

1.

I am the President, chief executive officer and chief financial officer of Rotate Black, Inc.

2.

Attached to this certification is Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, a periodic report (the periodic report) filed by the issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), which contains financial statements.

3

I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

·

The periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

·

The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer for the periods presented.

|                       |                                                               
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |                                                               
|Date: October 13, 2009 | /s/ John Paulsen                                              
|                       | Chairman, CEO and CFO                                         
|                       | (Principal Executive Officer and 
Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0000929697
<NAME>                       THE GENERAL CHEMICAL GROUP INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                 1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                  34,995
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           58,427
<ALLOWANCES>                             2,668
<INVENTORY>                             21,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       121,709
<PP&E>                                 312,061
<DEPRECIATION>                         167,041
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         289,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   56,761
<BONDS>                                150,505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                   225
<OTHER-SE>                             (43,369)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           289,033
<SALES>                                194,755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       194,755
<CGS>                                  156,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          156,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       9,764
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          5,453
<INCOME-TAX>                             1,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      4,387
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             4,387
<EPS-BASIC>                              .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .20



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of William R. Phillips, Respondent, v Brion D. Travis, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Parole, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 397]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 4, 2005, which granted petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner parole, and remanded the matter for a rehearing before a Parole Board comprised of different commissioners, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the determination reinstated and the petition dismissed.

Contrary to the finding of the motion court, respondent complied with the statutory mandate to consider certain guidelines in determining whether to release an inmate on parole (Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). The Parole Board is not required to delineate in its decision each of the guidelines considered *(Matter of King v New York State Div. of Parole,*83 NY2d 788, 791 [1994]). The record reflects that petitioner was afforded a proper hearing in which only the relevant guidelines were considered *(see id.).*Where, as here, the sentencing court, and not the Board of Parole, has set the minimum sentence of imprisonment, those guidelines include the seriousness of the offense and the inmate’s prior criminal record *(id.*at 790, citing Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]; [2] [c]). Given the heinousness of petitioner’s crime, the Board’s denial of parole was neither arbitrary nor capricious *(see Matter of Garcia v New York State Div. of Parole,*239 AD2d 235, 240 [1997]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ. *[See*6 Misc 3d 1041(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 50386(11) (2005).]
STATE of North Carolina v. Toney CAUDLE.

No. 433P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Caudle.

Jane Ammons Gilchrest, Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, William Graham, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 641 S.E.2d 351.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of April 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."

Justices TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUDSON recused.