alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w31



 






EXHIBIT 10.31




Retention Agreement with each of John D. Schwab, Clinton A. Sampson, and Randall J. Peterson




August 16, 2006



[Address]



Dear ___:



In connection with our recently announced transaction involving the merger of Republic
Bancorporation, Inc. (“Republic”) with and into Citizens Banking Corporation (“Citizens”) (the
“Merger”), the compensation and human resources committee of the board of directors of Citizens
(the “Committee”) has determined that your specialized knowledge and expertise will be instrumental
in assuring a successful integration of the two companies. As such, the Committee has authorized
me to extend to you this offer of a “retention bonus”. Under this arrangement, you would continue
as [functional title] of the Corporation and would continue to report directly to me and would also
assist me in the integration process with respect to the Merger. In return, Citizens would agree
to pay to you in addition to your normal compensation, a lump sum payment of $150,000 following
December 31, 2008 (the “Retention Period”). In return, Citizens would require that: i) you do not
terminate your employment with Citizens and that you continue as an active employee of Citizens
through the Retention Period; ii) your job performance continue at an acceptable level consistent
with past performance; and, iii) while the Change in Control Agreement entered into between you and
Citizens on [hire date] would remain in full force and effect, the Merger shall not constitute a
“Change in Control” for purposes of the Change in Control Agreement.



If you are interested in continuing in the employ of Citizens pursuant to the above-described
arrangement, please indicate your desire to do so by signing the duplicate originals of this letter
agreement and returning them to me. Thereafter, I will sign both originals and return one fully
executed original to you for your records while retaining the other for our records. Also, by
signing this letter agreement, you agree not to disclose any of the provisions contained herein to
third parties and to treat the provisions of this agreement in a confidential manner.



Very truly yours,




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Agreed and Accepted	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ William R. Hartman
 

William R. Hartman

	 	 
	 	/s/ 
 

	 	 
	Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 






44
* 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. 98-40210

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KELVIN JERALE COLEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CR-52-1

- - - - - - - - - -

November 3, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kelvin Jerale Coleman appeals his sentence following a

guilty plea to possession of crack cocaine with intent to

distribute. Coleman argues that the district court’s

determination that he possessed a firearm during the commission

of the offense is clearly erroneous. Having reviewed the record

and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and AFFIRM. See

United States v. Ramos, 71 F.3d 1150, 1157-58 (5th Cir. 1995);

United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR K O E R DI NG , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C OMMI S S I ON E R OF S OC I AL S E C UR I T Y A DMI NI S T R AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 35939 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 6 3 3 - PK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nc e rL . H a gge r ty , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T i m W i l born, the a tt orne y of r e c or d f orM a rk O e r di ng a nd the r e a l - pa r ty - i ni nt e r e s t , appe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e ntgr a nt i ng i n pa rthi s m ot i on f or 

# FI LED JAN 26 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 35939 2 a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 6 ( b ) b a s e d o n ac o n tin g e n t- f e e a g r e e m e n t w ith O e r di ng. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n , Cr aw

f ord v . A s tr ue , 586 F . 3d 1142, 1147 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( e n ba nc ) , a nd w e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by r e duc i ng the f e e s f r om the am ou ntspec i fi ed i n the fe e a gree m entbase d o n the court ’ s a ss es sm entof w hatw as r e a s o n ab le g iv e n th e r is ka n d c o m p le x ity in v o lv e d in th is c a s e . See G isbre cht v. B a rn h a rt , 5 3 5 U .S . 7 8 9 , 8 0 8 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( s ta tin g th a t “[ i]f th e b e n e f

its a r e la r g e in com pari son t o the am ou ntof t i m e c ou nsel spenton the ca se , a dow nw ar d a d ju s tm e n t is . . . in o r d e r ” ) ; Cra w f o rd , 5 8 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 2 - 5 3 ( e x p la in in g th a t c o u r ts shou l d ass es s the com pl exi ty a nd ri sk i nv ol ved i n the spec i fi c c as e a ti ss ue, ra ther tha n s oc i a l s e c ur i ty c a s e s i n ge ne r a l , w he n a na l y z i ng the r e a s onabl e ne s s of the r e q u e s te d f

e e s ) ; s e e al

s o C lark v . A s tr ue , 529 F . 3d 1211, 1214 ( 9th C i r . 2008) (“ T he di stri ctcourtabuses i t s di sc re t i on i f i tdo es no tappl y the corre ctl egal st andard or res t s i t s dec i si on on a c l ea rl y e rr on eous fi nd i ng of fa ct . ”) . AF F I RME D.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18386-18387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10139]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT96-57-000]


Pacific Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

April 19, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 16, 1996, Pacific Gas Transmission 
Company (PGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1-A: Second Revised Sheet No. 1, and Third Revised 
Sheet No. 201; and as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Sheet 
No. 1 and Fourth Revised Sheet No. 171, to become effective May 17, 
1996. The proposed changes would have no effect on revenues from 
jurisdictional service.
    PGT asserts that the purpose of this filing is to remove from its 
tariff the Index of Shippers, pursuant to Order No. 582, issued October 
11, 1995. PGT further states that on April 1, 1996 it posted an updated 
Index of Customers on its Electronic Bulletin Board.
    PGT states that a copy of this filing has been served upon all 
jurisdictional customers and upon interest state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest said filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 
and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All 
such motions or protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 
of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are

[[Page 18387]]

available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10139 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Theodore CHARLES, Appellant.

No. WD 40814.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 1, 1989.

Bruce R. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and CLARK and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction of the class “A” felony of Robbery in the first degree under Section 569.020, RSMo 1986.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
#### Cheryl MARBACH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 04-88-00243-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

July 19, 1989.

Don Fidler, San Antonio, for appellant.

*412Fred G. Rodriguez, Robert McClure, Michael Gebhart, Crim. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, for appellee.

Before CADENA, C.J., and PEEPLES and CARR, JJ.

OPINION

CARR, Justice.

Appellant was charged by complaint (filed on May 4, 1984) with the offense of theft of service (allegedly occurring on January 10, 1984), a class B misdemeanor. After appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction of the trial court was denied on April 6, 1988, the trial court found her guilty and assessed punishment at twenty three (23) days’ confinement in the Bexar County Jail.

Both appellant and the State agree that the record contains no filed information, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the conviction is void, and that the judgment should be reversed. The only issue in this case is one of proper remedy, i.e., whether to reverse and order acquittal or reverse and remand the cause.

Appellant urges that because the offense in the filed complaint was alleged to have been committed in January of 1984, any information now presented would be barred by the two year statute of limitations pursuant to TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 12.02 (Vernon 1977). The State argues that limitations has been tolled by TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 12.05 (Vernon 1977) which provides that certain periods of time are to be excluded from computation:

> (a)The time during which the accused is absent from the State shall not be computed in the period of limitation.

> (b) The time during the pendency of an indictment, information, or complaint shall not be computed in the period of limitation.

> (c) The term “during the pendency,” as used herein, means that period of time beginning with the day the indictment, information, or complaint is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, and ending with the day such accusation is, by an order of a trial court having jurisdiction thereof, determined to be invalid for any reason.

TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 12.05 (Vernon 1977).

Under Article 21.25 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the State had a clear procedure to suggest to the trial court that a valid information was filed within the limitation period but subsequently lost pri- or to Appellant’s plea. The record’s silence and the State’s inaction raise the presumption that no valid information ever existed or the State would have followed the clear statutory procedure.

We hold that a filed misdemeanor complaint without a filed information does not trigger art. 12.05(b), TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.ANN. (Vernon 1977).

The judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions that the trial court take no further action unless and until a proper information is filed by the State.
EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------

                               T R FINANCIAL CORP.



                               ORGANIZATION CHART

                                DECEMBER 31, 1997


                          T R FINANCIAL CORP. (ACTIVE)
                      - owns 100% of Roosevelt Savings Bank

                         ROOSEVELT SAVINGS BANK (ACTIVE)
              - owns 100% of the following subsidiary corporations

                     Roosevelt Asset Funding Corp. (active)

                      Anaconda Enterprises, Inc. (active*)

                               BSR, Inc. (active)

                           Bellingham Corp. (inactive)

                      155 East 33rd Street Corp. (inactive)

                       Oyster Bay Holding Corp. (inactive)

                        Rokings Holding Corp. (inactive)

                       Roosevelt Abstract Corp. (inactive)

                         Roosevelt Land Corp. (inactive)

                        Roosevelt Service Corp. (active)

                        Rosouth Holding Corp. (inactive)

                          VBF Holding Corp. (inactive)


                   All companies listed above are located at:

                              1122 Franklin Avenue
                           Garden City, New York 11530


* As of March 2, 1998, Anaconda Enterprises, Inc. is inactive.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-30024, 333-34810, 333-39456,
333-96553, 333-108065, 333-126004, 333-133870, 333-133871), Form S-3 (Nos. 333-59456,
333-48100, 333-138600) and Form S-4 (No. 333-131541) of EarthLink, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated
February 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of EarthLink, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of EarthLink, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta,
Georgia
February 28, 2008

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6003
In Re: WAYNE C. JOHNSON, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-99-119) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Johnson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court seeking enforcement of a proposed order to release him from custody. Johnson drafted the order himself and attached it to a motion for summary judgment, which he filed in the district court on November 28, 2001. The proposed order was never executed by the district court. The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Johnson has failed to make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief. Moreover, our review of the district court docket sheet discloses that there has been no undue delay in considering his motion. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3660

JLG Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10883]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on May 6 
and May 7, 1996 at the Best Western Miner's Inn Conference Room, 122 
East Miner Street, Yreka, California. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. 
on May 6 and adjourn at 4:30 p.m. The meeting will reconvene at 8 a.m. 
on May 7 and continue until 4:00 p.m. Agenda items to be covered 
include: (1) Monitoring (both President's Forest Plan and Forest Plan); 
(2) salvage timber sale monitoring; (3) Trinity County proposed special 
legislation; (4) land management services contracting and existing 
timber contract authorities; (5) standing committee reports; and (6) 
public comment periods. All PAC meetings are open to the public. 
Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Hendryx, USDA, Klamath National 
Forest, 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, California 96097; telephone 916-842-
6131, (FTS) 700-467-1309.

    Dated April 26, 1996.
Barbara Holder,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 96-10883 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of W.  S.  INDUSTRIES,  INC.  (the
"COMPANY")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  I, James
F. Dempsey, President and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, of THE COMPANY,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

     2.   The  information  ontained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of THE COMPANY.

Date:  July 11, 2008

                                             By: /s/ JAMES F. DEMPSEY
                                                 _________________________
                                                 James F. Dempsey
                                                 Chief Executive  Officer
#### In the Matter of Lev Realty Company, Respondent, v State of New York Division of Housing and Community *533Renewal, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State of New York, Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, dated January 6, 1987, confirming its prior determination dated October 16, 1985, finding that the petitioner was entitled to a labor cost modification to the 1984/ 1985 maximum base rent of only $9.59 per month, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated June 5, 1987, which granted the petition and awarded the petitioner a monthly labor cost modification of $39.98.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed, on the merits.

We find that the appellant agency rationally interpreted the relevant provisions of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations *(see,*9 NYCRR part 2200 *et seq.)*in calculating the rent increase to which the petitioner was entitled, based upon excess labor costs for the 1984/1985 maximum base rent period *(see, Matter of 160 Columbia Hgts. Corp. v Joy,*41 NY2d 1019; *see also, Matter of Sigsbee Holding Corp. v Leventhal,*42 AD2d 561, *affd*35 NY2d 862; *Matter of Sherman v Gabel,*22 AD2d 889). Since the agency’s calculation had a rational basis, its determination should have been confirmed *(see, Matter of Howard v Wyman,*28 NY2d 434; *Matter of Kaplen v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*131 AD2d 483). The letters submitted by the parties subsequent to oral argument are dehors the record and have not been considered on appeal. Kooper, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Brown, J. P., concurs in the result with the following memorandum:

I agree that, based upon the record before us, the Supreme Court erred in annulling the determination of the appellant State of New York, Division of Housing and Community Renewal, since that determination has a rational basis. However, given the appellant’s postargument concession that some unspecified error in calculating the correct labor cost rental adjustment did, in fact, occur, I would grant the petitioner leave to seek an upward modification of the approved rental increase.
#### Robert ELLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48948.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 14, 1995.

Peter J. Koppe, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*272ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for posteonviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of W. S.  INDUSTRIES,  INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  February 28, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
James F. Dempsey,  President and Chief Executive Officer,  respectively,  of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 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, as amended; and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: April 14, 2006


/s/ JAMES F. DEMPSEY
___________________________
    James F. Dempsey
    Chief Financial Officer