alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


Description of Director Compensation*


 


	
  Compensation
  Element

  	
   

  	
  Terms or Amounts

  
	
  General
  Board Service – Cash

  	
   

  	
  ·  Board retainer: $30,000

  ·  Board meeting fees: none

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  General
  Board Service – Equity

  	
   

  	
  ·  Initial grant: 21,000 shares of stock-settled
  stock appreciation rights (“SS-SAR’s”) and 4,500 shares of restricted stock
  units (“RSU’s”)

  ·  Annual grant: 8,400 shares of SS-SAR’s and 1,800
  shares of RSU’s

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Equity
  Vesting

  	
   

  	
  ·  Initial grant:

  SS-SAR’s: 4-year vest; 25% cliff vest after one year and monthly thereafter

  RSU’s: 4-year vest; 50% after two years and 50% on the four year
  anniversary of the grant date

  ·  Annual grant: 100% vest one year after the date of
  grant.

  ·  If a director resigns from the Board at an annual
  meeting that is within 30 days of the first anniversary of the date of grant,
  100% of the annual grant will vest on the first anniversary of the date of
  grant.

  ·  Directors are eligible for an annual grant in
  their first year of service only if their election was at least 6 months prior
  to the annual grant

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Board
  Chair Compensation

  	
   

  	
  ·  $10,000 additional Board Service retainer (i.e.,
  total Board Service retainer of $40,000)

  ·  Receives same Committee member/chair retainers and
  equity awards as other Directors

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Committee
  Service

  	
   

  	
  ·  Eliminate per meeting fees and replace with the
  following retainers:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Committee

  	
   

  	
  Chair

  	
   

  	
  Member

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Audit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  25,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Compensation

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Nominating & Governance

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  



 






*  As clarified May 13, 2009.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Robert Richmond, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of SteelCloud, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial 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(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: June 13, 2007 By: /s/ Robert Richmond       Name: Robert Richmond  Title: Chief Operating Officer
Opinion issued December 18, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 8
- 0 0 659
- CV

——————————— ORION RE AL E STATE SERVICES SOUTH E AST, LLC , Appellant V. S P JEFFERSON LAKES I, LP , Appellee

O n Appeal from the Coun t y Civil C ourt at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 109844 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Orion Real Estate Services Southeast, LLC, has filed a motion to
dismiss this appeal

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 1( a) (1)

. Although appellant’ s motion does not contai n a certificate of conference, it contains a certificate of service on counsel for appell e e, the motion has been on file with this Court for more than ten2

days, and no response has been filed

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.5(d), (e), 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2). N o other party has filed a notice of appeal and no opinion has issued

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal

. See T EX . R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1) , (d), 43.2(f)

. We dismiss a ny other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley , Lloyd, and Caughey

.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129135 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. CORNELIUS G. BA CHUS, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of DEBORAH Justices JANE BACHUS, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 129135 COA: 252686 Alcona CC: 02-011062-NO SHIRLEY FOLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH
, J., would grant leave to appeal.

s0120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 27, 2006

Clerk
#### BOYD & GOFORTH v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WEST JEFFERSON et al.

(Filed 5 November, 1930.)

Venue A b — Venue of action involving official conduct of municipal officers is county wherein municipality is situate and alleged acts took place.

An action involving the official conduct of the officers of an incorporated town in a certain county has its proper venue in that county, and where the town and others have been made defendants the action is properly removed there from another county.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Finley, J.,*at July Term, 1930, of Ashe.

Affirmed.

*J. F. Flowers for plaintiffs.*

*T. C. Bowie for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

This action was begun in tbe Superior Court of Meck-lenburg County. One of tbe defendants is tbe town of West Jefferson, a municipal corporation in Asbe County. Tbe Superior Court of Meck-lenburg, upon motion made in apt time, removed tbe cause to Asbe County. Thereafter tbe plaintiffs lodged a motion in tbe Superior Court of Asbe.County to remand tbe cause to Mecklenburg. Tbe motion was denied and tbe plaintiffs excepted and appealed. Tbe facts found by tbe trial judge and set out in tbe record fully warrant tbe order refusing tbe plaintiffs’ motion to remand tbe cause. Tbe action involves tbe official conduct of tbe municipal officers of West Jefferson in tbe county of its situs and tbe proper venue is Asbe County. *Cecil v. High Point,*165 N. C., 431. Judgment

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

Northern District of California

In re:

Debtor(s)

Bankruptcy No.:

R.S. No.:

Hearing Date:

Time:

Relief From Stay Cover Sheet

Instructions: Complete caption and Section A for all motions. Complete Section B for mobile homes, motor vehicles, and personal property.

Complete Section C for real property. Utilize Section C as necessary. If moving party is not a secured creditor, briefly summarize the nature

of the motion in Section D.

(A) Date Petition Filed: Chapter:

Prior hearings on this obligation: Last Day to File §523/§727 Complaints:

(B) Description of personal property collateral (e.g. 1983 Ford Taurus):

Secured Creditor [ ] or lessor [ ]

Fair market value: $________________ Source of value:__________________

Contract Balance: $________________ Pre-Petition Default: $_______________

Monthly Payment: $________________ No. of months: ___________

Insurance Advance: $________________ Post-Petition Default: $_______________

No. of months: ___________

 (C) Description of real property collateral (e.g. Single family residence, Oakland, CA):

Fair market value: $_______________ Source of value:_______________ If appraisal, date:___________

Moving Party's position (first trust deed, second, abstract, etc.):

Approx. Bal. $_______________ Pre-Petition Default: $_______________

As of (date): _______________ No. of months: ____________

Mo. payment: $_______________ Post-Petition Default: $_______________

Notice of Default (date): __________ No. of months: ____________

Notice of Trustee's Sale: __________ Advances Senior Liens: $_______________

Specify name and status of other liens and encumbrances, if known (e.g. trust deeds, tax liens, etc.):

Position Amount Mo. Payment Defaults

1st Trust Deed:_____________________ $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

2nd Trust Deed: ____________________ $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

_________________________________:

_________________________________:

_________________________________:

(Total) $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

(D) Other pertinent information:

______________________________________

Signature

______________________________________

Print or Type Name

Attorney for___________________________________

CANB Documents Northern District of California 

Dated:

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric

Company

19-30088 (DM)

01/29/2019 11

none

Commercial building, Oakland, CA

unk

Moving party claims an ownership right or a right to use a wall of the 

Debtor's building via easement or adverse possession 

unknown

PG&E filed suit in California State Court against moving parties for trespass and nuisance. Moving parties seek relief 

from stay to file compulsory cross-complaint seeking right to use of building wall, either through easement, adverse 

possession, or out-right ownership

11/22/2019

Ronald F. Berestka, Jr., Esq.

George M. Vlazakis, et al.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4846-1 Filed: 11/22/19 Entered: 11/22/19 13:43:21 Page 1

of 1
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5261 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:18:20 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5261 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:18:20 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5261 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:18:20 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5261 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:18:20 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5261 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:18:20 Page 5 of

5
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29964]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA, Inc., Special Committee 185; Aeronautical Spectrum Planning 
Issues

    Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a 
Special Committee 185 meeting to be held on January 3-4, 1996, starting 
at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, 
N.W., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036.
    The agenda will be as follows: (1) Administrative Remarks; (2) 
Introductions; (3) Review and Approval of the Agenda; (4) Review and 
Approval of the Summary of the Previous Meeting; (5) Review Rewrite of 
Changes Made at Last Plenary Meeting; (6) Assignment of Tasks; (7) 
Other Business; (8) Date and Place of Next Meeting.
    Attedance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 1020, Washington, D.C. 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone) or (202) 833-9434 (fax). Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 4, 1995.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 95-29964 Filed 12-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-13-M
#### George W. Carter, Appellant, v. Joseph W. Wallace, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 237 (Monday, December 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30078]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the North Dakota Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the North Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
1:00 p.m. and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 7, 1995. The 
purpose of the meeting is to provide orientation to new members, brief 
Committee members on Commission activities, discuss the current 
project, and plan future activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Betty L. Mills, 
701-223-4643, or John F. Dulles, Director of the Rocky Mountain 
Regional Office, 303-866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least five 
(5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission. Dated at Washington, DC, .
Carol-Lee Hurley
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit
[FR Doc. 95-30078 Filed 12-6-95; 1:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-F
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the annual report of PSPP Holdings, Inc.
on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cherish Adams, Chief Executive Officer
(or equivalent thereof) and Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

      (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/ Cherish Adams
                              -------------------------
                              Cherish Adams
                              Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)


                              February 1, 2007
#### Paul F. Akin, an Infant, by Frank T. Akin, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. William A. Lee, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly report of PSPP Holdings, Inc.
                       (formerly  Pitts & Spitts, Inc.)
on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ed Litwak, Chief Executive Officer
(or equivalent thereof) and Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

      (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/ Ed Litwak
                              -------------------------
                              Ed Litwak
                              Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)
                              January 17, 2007
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 21, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41253 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL DWIGHT RAVEN, also known as Red, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-779 USDC No. 3:95-CR-10-1

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Dwight Raven, federal prisoner # 46219-079, appeals the denial of his F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) motion requesting that the district court set aside its order dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We reject the Government’s contention that the Rule 60(b) motion should have been treated as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby , 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2648 (2005) (holding, in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 context, that when a Rule 60(b) motion attacks “some defect in the integrity ofNo. 04-41253 -2- the federal habeas proceedings,” such as alleging that the district court misapplied the statute of limitations, the motion is not the equivalent of a successive habeas application and should not be construed as such). We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Dunn v. Cockrell , 302 F.3d 491, 492 (5th Cir. 2002) . Raven has not shown that he was prevented from filing a timely § 2255 motion due to an impediment created by governmental action. See Egerton v. Cockrell , 334 F.3d 433, 436 (5th Cir. 2003); § 2255(2). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, the order denying Raven’s Rule 60(b) motion is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Travelport Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeff Clarke, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael E. Rescoe, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



|/s/JEFF CLARKEJEFF CLARKE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER March 11, 2008             |  |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/MICHAEL E. RESCOEMICHAEL E. RESCOE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER March 11, 2008 |  |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### GEORGE SLAYDON v. OLIVIA MARION, Original Defendant, and SANFORD MARION, Additional Defendant.

(Filed 2 March, 1955.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sharp, S. J.,*at November Special Civil Term 1954, of Sueby.

Civil action to have certain deed adjudged to be void.

Plaintiff alleges, in his complaint, substantially these facts: (1) That on 22 February, 1944, while he and *feme*defendant, Olivia Marion, now Olivia Slaydon Marion, were husband and wife, he, at her instance and request, and in consideration of and in reliance upon her promise to execute and deliver to him a warranty deed conveying and releasing to him all her right, title and interest in and to certain land in Surry County, North Carolina, title to Avhieh rested in them as husband and wife, and for which he had paid the purchase price, plaintiff “executed and turned over to defendant a deed to certain land belonging to him, which said deed was filed for registration and is of record” in Book 148 at page 300 in office of Eegister of Deeds of Surry County;

(2) That defendant failed and refused to execute such deed of conveyance and release to plaintiff, but abandond him and left, and has since remained outside the State; and

(3) “That said deed . . . was secured by the defendant from the plaintiff fraudulently and deceitfully, and utterly lacking in consideration.”

Defendants demurred *ore tenus*upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The demurrer was sustained. And from judgment in accordance therewith plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Frank Freeman for Plaintiff, Appellant.*

*Woltz & Barber and Thomas M. Faw for Defendants, Appellees.*

Per Curiam.

In the light of well settled principles applicable to actions based upon fraud, applied to the allegations of the complaint, it is readily seen that the facts alleged are insufficient to state a cause of action. Hence the ruling of the court below, in sustaining the demurrer, is

Affirmed.