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






Exhibit 10.1 
SUMMARY SHEET OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 


The following summary sets forth current annual rates of cash and equity compensation for non-management directors, effective immediately following the May 17, 2016 Board meeting.


	
							
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Compensation Item
	 
	Prior Year  
Compensation
	 
	Current Year  
Compensation

	Cash Compensation
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Board Retainer
	 
	$
	60,000
	 
	$
	80,000

	Audit Committee
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Chair Retainer
	 
	$
	18,000
	 
	$
	25,000

	Member Retainer
	 
	$
	8,000
	 
	$
	10,000

	Compensation Committee
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Chair Retainer
	 
	$
	15,000
	 
	$
	20,000

	Member Retainer
	 
	$
	6,000
	 
	$
	8,000

	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Chair Retainer
	 
	$
	10,000
	 
	$
	15,000

	Member Retainer
	 
	$
	5,000
	 
	$
	7,000

	Equity Compensation - Restricted Stock or Restricted Stock Units
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Board Chair Retainer (including director retainer)
	 
	$
	260,000
	 
	$
	285,000

	Director Retainer
	 
	$
	135,000
	 
	$
	135,000






	
		
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 






Directors may defer their cash compensation by participating in the Company’s Deferred Compensation Program, effective as of December 1, 2011 (filed February 24, 2012 as Exhibit 10.13 to the Company’s Form 10-K). 


Directors may receive the equity component of their compensation in restricted stock or restricted stock units (RSUs). In either case, the awards generally have a 12-month vesting period, ending on the day preceding the next annual meeting of shareholders. Vesting accelerates in the event of death, disability or a change in control of the Company. The number of shares is calculated by dividing the dollar value by the closing price of the Company’s stock on the grant date. RSUs are settled in shares of common stock and earn dividend equivalents at a 20% discount to the market price of Company stock on the dividend payment date. Directors may elect to defer settlement of the RSU award for 2 to 10 years after the grant date. 


The Company pays for travel expenses incurred by the directors to attend Board meetings. 


Our employee directors do not receive additional compensation for their Board service.
# **Exhibit 32.1**

# ** **

# **OFFICER’SCERTIFICATION**

# ** **

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the Chief Executive Officer ofWestern Sizzlin Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 and the financial statements containedtherein, fully comply with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Qand the financial statements thereto fairly present, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of March31, 2006, and the period then ended.

 

 
| /s/ James C. Verney |   | May 12, 2006 |
|---------------------|--------|--------------|

 

1

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41008

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STEVEN WADE CHANDLER

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-247-4

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Steven Wade Chandler has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Chandler has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Chandler’s claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41008

2

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Chandler’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal; therefore, this

court will not entertain Chandler’s request for additional time to obtain and

review the record. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
STATE of North Carolina v. Tanisha Decole BELCHER.

No. COA15-31.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 16, 2015.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General David Gordon, for the State.

Mark Montgomery, for defendant-appellant.

BRYANT, Judge.

Defendant appeals from judgments entered upon a jury's verdict finding her guilty of two counts of first-degree rape involving an eight-year-old boy, which sentenced her to two consecutive terms of 216 to 320 months' imprisonment. Because defendant has waived her right to review the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress, we dismiss her appeal.

Immediately prior to trial, defendant made an oral motion to suppress portions of her medical records that the State intended to introduce at trial. Defendant argued that the records were testimonial in nature and their introduction through a witness who did not create the records would violate her constitutional right to confront her accusers. *See**Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). After hearing arguments from counsel for the defense and the State, the trial court denied the motion.

_________________________

Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred as a matter of law in not making findings of fact and conclusions of law before denying her motion to suppress. Defendant, however, did not file a written motion accompanied by a supporting affidavit as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-977(a). N.C.G.S. § 15A-977(a) (2013) ; *see also id.*§ 15A-975(a) (2013) ("In superior court, the defendant may move to suppress evidence only prior to trial...."). Defendant also has not, either at trial or on appeal, made any argument as to why she should be excused from having to file a pre-trial written motion and affidavit. *See id.*§ 15A-975(a)-(c) (permitting a defendant to move to suppress evidence at trial in limited circumstances). Defendant has, thus, failed to comply with the procedural requirements of N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-975 and 15A-977 and has waived review of this issue on appeal. *State v. Holloway,*311 N.C. 573, 578, 319 S.E.2d 261, 264 (1984) ("[B]y failing to comply with statutory requirements set forth in N.C.G.S. 15A-977 [defendants] waive their rights to contest on appeal the admission of evidence on constitutional or statutory grounds." (citations omitted)). Defendant's appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

DISMISSED.

Judges DIETZ and TYSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

**Opinion**

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 29 May 2014 by Judge Marvin K. Blount in Martin County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 June 2015.
Stan J.H. Lee, CPA
2160 North Central Rd. Suite 203t
Fort Lee t
NJ 07024
794 Broadway t
Chula Vista t
CA t
 91910
619-623-7799 Fax 619-564-3408 E-mail)



|
|





To Whom It May Concern:



The firm of Stan J.H. Lee, Certified Public Accountant,  consents to the inclusion of our report of May 4th, 2007  on the reviewed  financial statements of BoysToys.com, Inc. as of March 31, 2007 , in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



Very truly yours,







/s/ Stan J.H. Lee, CPA
__________________________Stan J.H. Lee, CPA



Chula Vista, CA  91910
May 4, 2007





















Registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; R21's.                    

*Date:*                         March 4, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Hua-Chuan Sim, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1833  Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
STATE v. ANDERSON.

No. COA07-1473.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (06CRS101057).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
exv4w1










	The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they
were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM — as tenants in
common UNIF GIFT (TRANS) MIN ACT — Custodian TEN ENT — as tenants by the entireties
(Cust) (Wnorl JT Ten — as joint tenants with right under Uniform
Gifts (Transfer) to minors of survivorship and not as Act tenants in common (State!
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received, hereby
sells, assigns and transfers unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING Number
OF ASSIGNEE PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE Shares of the Capital Stock
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to
transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises. Dated X X NOTICE: THE SIGNATURES TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST
CORRESPOND WTHTHE NAME(S) AS WRTTEN UPON : THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EvERY
PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. Signature(s) Guaranteed By
THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS,
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE
MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.





 









 









	 




	GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by
duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is
not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.
WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized
officers.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JULIUS DARNELL ROBERTS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-30000

D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00282-FVS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Julius Darnell Roberts appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed upon

resentencing following his successful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Roberts contends that the district court erred in several respects when it

FILED

MAR 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-30000

calculated the Guidelines range. First, he argues that the district court erroneously

applied an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. On remand, the district

court was free to consider any matters relevant to resentencing. See United States

v. Matthews, 278 F.3d 880, 885-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Roberts’ attempt to flee,

coupled with other obstructive conduct, was sufficient to support application of the

adjustment. See United States v. Madera-Gallegos, 945 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir.

1991). 

Second, Roberts contends that the district court erroneously applied an

enhancement for possession of a firearm. Roberts fails to demonstrate that it was

“clearly improbable” that he possessed a firearm in connection with the offense. 

See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt., n. 3; see also United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d

1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Third, Roberts contends that the district court failed to consider whether the

Guidelines’ disparate treatment of crack versus powder cocaine justified a

downward variance based on the court’s policy disagreement with the Guidelines. 

Because Roberts did not raise this contention in the district court, we decline to

address it for the first time on appeal. United States v. Flores-Payton, 942 F.2d

556, 558 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Finally, Roberts contends that the district court improperly included an
3 10-30000

uncounseled misdemeanor conviction in its calculation of his criminal history

score. The district court did not err, let alone plainly err, because Roberts fails to

present any evidence that would overcome the presumption that there was a valid

waiver of counsel. See United States v. Allen, 153 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.

1998). 

The district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence at the bottom of

the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable under the totality of the

circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United

States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Roberts’ motion to strike the government’s argument is denied.

AFFIRMED.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NACO Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  Quarter  Ended  August  31,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Verne
E. Bray, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (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/ Verne E. Bray
--------------------------
Verne E. Bray
Chief Executive Officer
October 13, 2004

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.

This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except 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 Exchange Act of 2002, as amended.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Certification for Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ohio State Bancshares, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
  [This paragraph intentionally left blank.]
   5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: March 29, 2006
    
    
    
    /s/ GARY E. PENDLETONGary E. Pendleton, President and CEO
# C_2023252EN.01002001.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/20

---

Appeal brought on 11 April 2023 by Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL) and Issam Abdelmouine against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission

(Case C-224/23 P)

(2023/C 252/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Penya Barça Lyon: Plus que des supporters (PBL), Issam Abdelmouine (represented by: J. Branco, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2023 in Case T-538/21, PBL and WA v Commission in its entirety;

| — | uphold the final conclusions presented by the applicants at first instance in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the final conclusions presented by the applicants at first instance in their entirety.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on several grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in fact and in law by rejecting, as inadmissible, the application for annulment in respect of Penya Barça Lyon, given, (i), that the first applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings takes precedence over that of the second applicant when several people bring one and the same action and, (ii), by refusing the offer of evidence by the applicants in order to demonstrate the first applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings.

Secondly, the General Court infringed the applicants’ procedural rights by failing to rule on a plea presented relating to the discretionary nature of the Commission’s power concerning the complaints lodged before it.

Thirdly, the General Court erred in law by disregarding any direct proprietary and economic interest in the facts of the case of the applicants.

Fourthly, the appellants allege an infringement of Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) in that the General Court disregarded the second applicant’s status as an interested party and by holding that the interests of that applicant would not be comparable to those of a shareholder.

Fifthly, the General Court erred in holding that the new evidence submitted by the applicants on the day of the hearing did not affect the General Court’s assessments of its jurisdiction, of the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ action.

Sixthly, the appellants claim a conflict of interest on the part of a judge forming part of the formation of the judgment of the General Court.

---

(1)  Council Regulation of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---
William Thomas FOX and Scott Everett Sanders v. Mitchell JOHNSON, Timothy R. Bellamy, Gary W. Hastings, and Martha T. Kelly, in their individual capacities.

No. 26P14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

G. Gray Wilson, Winston-Salem, for Johnson, Mitchell, et al.

Stuart H. Russell, Winston-Salem.

Lorin J. Lapidus.

John C. Vermitsky, Winston-Salem, for Fox, William Thomas, et al.

Matthew N. Leerberg, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of November 2015 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 28th of January 2016."

EDMUNDS and ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Aswad Malik JONES.

No. 352P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

John L. Wait, High Point, for Jones, Aswad Malik.

Michael E. Bulled, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Flenderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of October 2015 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 15th of December 2015."