alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(xi)

Schedule of Director Compensation


The directors of the Company and the Bank other than the Chairman of the Board
are compensated for their services in the amount of $750 per board meeting held.
All directors, other than inside directors, also receive a fee of $450 for each
committee meeting held. The Chair of the Audit Committee receives a fee of
$1,800 for each Audit Committee meeting held. All other committee chairpersons
receive $600 for each committee meeting held. The Chairman of the Board of
Directors receives an annual fee of $36,000 and does not receive any additional
compensation for meetings attended.

Directors may defer receipt of fees into a grantor trust established by the
Company. Amounts which are deferred are invested in various mutual funds at the
participant's direction.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 1 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 2 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 3 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 4 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 5 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 6 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 7 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 8 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 9 of

10
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1865 Filed: 05/06/19 Entered: 05/06/19 17:22:43 Page 10

of 10
FILED 

Bowen Greenwood 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0589 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MIKEL S. LETHERMAN, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA 

FLED 

NOV 2 3 2021 

Bowen Greenvvood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana 

ORDER 

Representing himself, Mikel S. Letherman has filed a verified Petition for an Outof-Time Appeal and includes the first page of the sentencing judgment. Letherman is 

currently held in the Yellowstone County Detention Center. We amend the caption to 

comport with M. R. App. P. 2(4), and we note that Letherman only served the Deputy 

County Attorney and not the Attorney General. M. R. App. P. 10(2). 

As grounds, Letherman indicates that he failed to file the Notice of Appeal because 

he was not aware of the rule for filing a timely appeal within sixty days of the written 

judgment. He states that he seeks an appeal because he contests the underlying charge. 

The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, found Letherman 

guilty of felony operation of non-commerical vehicle by person with alcohol concentration 

of 0.08 or more, following a January 2021 bench trial. On June 29, 2021, the District Court 

sentenced Letherman, who appeared with stand-by counsel, to the Department of 

Corrections for twenty-four months. The court's Judgment was filed on July 14, 2021. 

M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to grant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the 

infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross 

miscarriage of justiceN" 

Letherman has a recent felony conviction and indicates that he is presently without 

counsel. We conclude that Letherman may be entitled to pursue this appeal and to qualify 

for the appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. Section 46-8-104, MCA. 

11/23/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0589

12/15/2021
Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Letherman's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellate Defender Division is APPOINTED 

to represent Mikel Stetson Letherman in this appeal. The Appellate Defender Division 

shall have thirty days from the date of this Order within which either to file a Notice of 

Appeal or a Motion to Rescind this Order Appointing Counsel. The Appellate Defender 

Division shall immediately order the appropriate transcripts, if they have not been already 

ordered. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the Appellate Defender 

Division; to Scott Twito and Victoria Callender, Yellowstone County Attorney's Office; 

to Austin Knudsen, Attorney General, along with a copy of the filed Petition; and to Mikel 

Stetson Letherman personal )1. 

DATED this 1 Z-3 day of November, 2021. 

Chief Justice 

‘94 M 3411 . 

11.1‹ : 0"edio .

Justices
### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00 581

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

RISING STARS THERAPY CENTER, LLC

, A ppellant

,

v.

GILBERTO IRACHETA, AND MARIA IRACHETA

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF

EMILY IRACHETA

, A ppellee s

.

____________________________________________________________

On A ppeal from the 139th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 139th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas in trial court cause number C

- 1446

- 11

- C . Appellant has now

filed an unopposed motion for remand in aid of settlement. The Court, having examined

and fully considered the unopposed motion for remand, is of the opinion that the motion2

should be granted. Accordingly, w e GRANT the motion for remand in aid of settlement

.

We set aside the trial court’s order for turnover relief without regard to the merits, and we

remand the case to the trial court for rendition o f judgment in accordance with the parties’

agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). Pursuant to the agreement of the

parties, costs will be taxed against the party incurring the same. See id. R. 42.1(d)

("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.").

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 25 th

day of October , 20 11

.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER
Appellate case name: Larry Stanley and Terri Stanley v. John McClanahan

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 3

- 00 982

- CV

Trial court case number: D

- 13

- 5,197

Trial court: County Court of Colorado County

In this forcible

- detainer action, appellants, Larry Stanley and Terry Stanley, have filed an “Emergency Motio n to Review Provisions of the Supersedeas Bond Order,” appearing to argue that the supersedeas bond set by the trial court is exce ssive. On any party’s motion, we may review the sufficiency or excessiveness of the amount security and the trial court’s exercise of discretion in setting the amount of security. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 24.4; TierOne Converged Networks, Inc. v. Lavon Water Supply Corp. , No. 05

- 13

- 00370

- CV, 2013 WL 6727876 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 19, 2013, no pet. ) (mem. op.)

. After reviewing appellants’ motion, however, we conclude that appellants have not demonstrated that they are entitled to relief. The clerk’s re cord does not contain any order by the trial court setting the amount of the bond for $18,963. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 24.4 (providing that appellate court reviews trial court’s order) ; LMC Complete Auto., Inc. v. Burke , 261 S.W.3d 749, 749 (Tex. App.

— Housto n [1st Dist.] 2006, order) (appellant did not provide copy of trial court order); Hamilton v. Hi

- Plains Truck Brokers, Inc.
, 23 S.W.3d 442, 443 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2000, order) (overruling appellee’s motion for order increasing amount of security because o f insufficient record). Further, appellants have failed to provide a record of the evidentiary hearing that took place in the trial court on the bond amount issue. See LMC Complete
, 261 S.W.3d at 749; see also Knowles v. Mack , No. 04

- 04

- 00422

- CV, 2004 WL 2046612, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Sept. 15, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Without a record of the evidence the trial court considered in deciding whether the amount of the bond would likely cause Knowles substantial economic harm, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying Knowles’ written motion to reduce the amount of security.”). Thus, we have an insufficient basis upon which to review the trial court’s decision. See LMC Complete , 261 S.W.3d at 749.

1 We note that appellants attached to their motion a purported copy of the trial court’s supersedeas bond order. However, the copy is not certified or file

- stamped and is not contained in the clerk’s record.Accordingly, appellants ’ motion is DENIED

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s / Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: Februar y 4, 2014
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## SJI Receives 4th Quarter FY 2012 Grant Applications

SJI received 23 grant applications requesting a total of $1,349,759 for the 4th quarter of FY 2012. The Board will meet on September 17, 2012, to finalize decisions on grant awards for the last quarter of this fiscal year. The results of this Board meeting will be available that same week.

SJI continues to receive inquiries regarding funding priorities and interests for FY 2013. The SJI Grant Guideline for FY 2013 will be available online through the SJI website in October. The grant and Education Support Program (ESP) application deadlines for FY 2013 are: 1st quarter – November 1, 2012; 2nd quarter – February 1, 2013; 3rd quarter – May 1, 2013; and, 4th quarter – August 1, 2013. SJI staff are available to assist with questions on the application process, and applicants are encouraged to review the SJI website and social media outlets for information and news on recently funded projects.

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00332

- CV

Bruce WEBB

, Appellant

v.

Horst GROSSPETER

, Appellee

From the 293rd Judicial District Court

, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22

- 01

- 14102

- DCV

Honorable Maribel Flores , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s May 12, 2022 Order Denying Defendants’ Special Appearance is AFFIRMED . We order appellant Bruce Webb to pay the costs of this appeal.

SIGNED February 22, 2023.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice
#### Alonzo W. Joline, Respondent, v. Patrick Connelly, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to punish defendant for contempt, denied.

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons 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. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. NO. 33,994 4 AUDREY MARTINEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY 7 Mary Marlowe-Sommer, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16
MEMORANDUM OPINION 172 WECHSLER, Judge. 1 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s order denying her motion to dismiss 2 the charge of commercial burglary. This app eal arises from two separate district court 3 cases that were addressed in a single plea agreement. Defendant entered a conditional 4 plea reserving for appeal the issues raised in her motion to dismiss. [DS 2; RP 64 5 (00265), RP 70 (00366)] This Court issued a calendar notice proposing to reverse 6 based on our decision in State v. Archuleta , ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 7 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted , 2015-NMCERT-___ (No. 8 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015) . The State has filed a response, objecting to our 9 notice and requesting that we hold this app eal in abeyance or provide the State with 10 a reasonable opportunity to seek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme Court on 11 all pending appeals controlled by our opinion in Archuleta . [MIO 1-3] We have 12 provided the State with such an opportunity , and the Supreme Court has denied the 13 State a stay or other remedy that w ould suspend the precedential value of Archuleta
. 14 Thus, pursuant to Rule 12-405(C) NMRA, we apply Archuleta. SeeRule 12-405(C) 15 (“A petition for a writ of certiorari filed pur suant to Rule 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme 16 Court order granting the petition does not affect the precedential value of an opinion 17 of the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”). 183 {2} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed 1 disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1, 3] We continue to believe that there are no 2 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in 3 Archuleta . For the reasons stated in our notice, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for 4 commercial burglary. 5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

_________ _______________________ 7 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 8
WE CONCUR: 9

________________________________ 10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 11

________________________________ 12 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 13
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 Annual Report of
VISION ACQUISITION III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antti William Uusiheimala, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Antti William
    UusiheimalaAntti
      William UusiheimalaJanuary
      19, 2010
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Reorganized Debtors. 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Liz Santodomingo, do declare and state as follows: 

1. I am employed by Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”)1, the claims and 

noticing agent for the Reorganized Debtors in the above-referenced chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

2. On September 19, 2022, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of Kroll 

caused the following document to be served via first class mail on the Notice Parties Service List 

attached hereto as Exhibit A: 

 Order and Notice of Opportunity to Object to Motions to File Claim After Claims Bar Date by 

Pro Se Claimants [Docket No. 12975] 

3. I have reviewed the Notices of Electronic Filing (NEF) for the above-listed document, and 

I understand that parties listed in each NEF as having received notice through electronic mail were 

electronically served with that document through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system. 

4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the 

foregoing is true and correct and that if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify 

thereto. 

1

 Effective March 29, 2022, Prime Clerk LLC changed its name to Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13009 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 22:56:03 Page 1

of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 SRF 64184 

Executed this 22nd day of September 2022, at New York, NY. 

/s/ Liz Santodomingo

Liz Santodomingo

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13009 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 22:56:03 Page 2

of 4
Exhibit A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13009 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 22:56:03 Page 3

of 4
Exhibit A

Notice Parties Service List

Served via First Class Mail

ADDRESSID NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE POSTAL CODE

9564747 Fuchs, Cindy Scott 219 Frankwood dr Folsom CA 95630

10228458 Green, Charles 85 Ridge Rd Rail Road Flat CA 95248-85

8842897 Hackwood, Mitchell 936 Robbie Way Windsor CA 95492

10230830 Kalika and Sean Casady 121 Hansen Way Petaluma CA 94954

10230851 Melton, Krisy Lynn 643 Russell Ave #5 Santa Rosa CA 95403

9562821 Mendoza, Laura Elizabeth 722 McConnell Ave Santa Rosa CA 95404

9563750 SMITH, ANGELINA 226 EAST 3RD STREET CLOVERDALE CA 95425

8697294 Tackett, Ronald L 4 Patches Dr Chico CA 95928

Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13009 Filed: 09/27/22 Entered: 09/27/22 22:56:03 Page 4

of 4
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30338

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jonathan Francis Kimbrell, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:19-CR-70-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

A jury convicted Jonathan Francis Kimbrell of attempted coercion and 

enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). In his sole issue 

on appeal, Kimbrell asserts that the district court erred by failing to instruct 

the jury sua sponte on the defense of entrapment even though he established 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

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

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30338 Document: 00516429915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2022
No. 21-30338

2

at trial the requisite Government inducement and his lack of predisposition 

to commit the offense. See United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 911, 918 (5th 

Cir. 2009). Kimbrell did not request an entrapment jury instruction; thus, 

we review his argument for plain error. See United States v. Hickman, 331 

F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 2003). 

The evidence presented at trial demonstrates that although the 

Government introduced the possibility of underage sexual relations when 

two agents, posing online as a married couple, offered Kimbrell the 

opportunity to have sex with Layla, the wife’s 11-year-old daughter, also 

played by one of the agents, Kimbrell was undeterred by her age. Kimbrell 

sent dozens of email messages eagerly and enthusiastically expressing his 

interest in having sex with Layla after learning of her age. The agents 

disengaged from the conversation at times, equivocated on scheduling a 

meeting, and offered Kimbrell numerous opportunities to abandon his plans, 

but Kimbrell persisted with plans to meet the couple and their daughter for 

sex. Based on the foregoing, Kimbrell fails to show that he was not 

predisposed to commit the enticement offense. See Theagene, 565 F.3d at 

919; see also United States v. Reyes, 239 F.3d 722, 739 (5th Cir. 2001). Because 

Kimbrell failed to set forth a prima facie case of entrapment, the district court 

did not err, plainly or otherwise, by not sua sponte instructing the jury on the 

theory of entrapment. See Hickman, 331 F.3d at 443; see also Theagene, 565 

F.3d at 918. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-30338 Document: 00516429915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2022
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1732 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:47:21 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1732 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:47:21 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1732 Filed: 04/26/19 Entered: 04/26/19 15:47:21 Page 3 of

3