alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_o-17.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10-O-17

     

    

     

     

     

    
      
        	 
      	
                World
      Headquarters, Room 538

              
	 
      	
                One
      American Road

              
	 
      	
                Dearborn,
      MI 48126-2798

              
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                [Date]

              


      

    

    


    Dear
[Name],

    


    In
recognition of Company, CBG, and individual performance in [Year], and in
anticipation of your continued leadership and ongoing efforts in [Year], the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved the following
incentive compensation for you:

    


    Your
Performance-based Restricted Stock Unit grant was a maximum opportunity having a
[one/two/three-year] performance period ending December 31,
[Year].   The performance metrics for the [Year] grant
were:

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              •

            	
              [Describe
      applicable metrics]

            


    

    


    Based on
performance against these metrics, the Compensation Committee has approved the
following:

    


    
      	
              PB-RSU
      Opportunity:

            	
              [     ]

            


    

    
      	
              PB-RSU
      Payout:

            	
              [     ]

            


    

    
      	
              RSU
      Final Award:

            	
              ]     ]
      of the original grant

            


    

    


    The final
RSU award will be restricted for [one/two/three-] years.  As soon as
practicable after the restriction lapses, you will be issued shares of Ford
Motor Company Common Stock, less shares withheld to cover any tax liability on
the value of the grant.

    


    All
stock-based awards are subject to the terms of the [1998/2008] Long-Term
Incentive Plan.  Additional information regarding all of your
stock-based awards is available on HR ONLINE.  If you have further
questions regarding your awards, please contact [Name] at [Phone
Number].

    


    Thank you
for all your efforts and continued leadership.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13(a)-14(a)
(SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Central Iowa Energy, LLC;
 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 small business issuer, as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officers 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 small business issuer and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
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 small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers third
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over
financial reporting.
 Date:      August 14, 2008
    /s/ Kimberly SmithKimberly Smith,Chief Financial Officer
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Before the Court is a Motion to Continue Trial filed by Defendants Larkin and Spear 

(Doc. 1526). The Motion is unopposed by the other Defendants. The Court will order 

Plaintiff to file an expeditated response and set the Motion for hearing. No reply will be 

allowed. 

The Court also seeks the parties’ positions on whether severing Defendants Lacey 

and Larkin for a separate trial has previously been considered,1and whether, under the 

circumstances, judicial economy and the Defendants’ interests would be better served by 

setting Defendants Lacey and Larkin for a separate trial. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a Response to the Motion to Continue 

(Doc. 1526) by March 14, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. Therein, Plaintiff shall also set out its 

position on the issue of severing Defendants Lacey and Larkin for separate trial. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file a Response to Plaintiff’s 

1

If so, the parties shall provide citation to the docket and briefing that reference such 

discussions. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1527 Filed 03/09/23 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

position on the issue of severing Defendants Lacey and Larkin for separate trial by March 

17, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that a hearing on the Motion to Continue Trial 

(Doc. 1526) is set for Monday, March 20, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 605 of the 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 

85003. Any requests to appear remotely must be supported by good cause. 

Dated this 9th day of March, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1527 Filed 03/09/23 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE of Missouri ex rel. Theodore HEFLIN, Petitioner, v. Charles MEGERMAN, Respondent, and Honorable Anthony J. Romano, Intervenor.

No. WD 51030.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 21, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 2, 1996.

Kathleen A. Hauser, City Attorney, Lucille R. Myles, Assistant City Attorney, Kansas City, for petitioner.

William H. Sanders, Sr., Alan V. Hallquist, Scott W. Martin, Blackwell, Sanders, Mathe-ny, Weary & Lombardi, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.

BRECKENRIDGE, Presiding Judge.

Theodore Heflin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his commitment to jail upon an order of criminal contempt issued by intervenor, the Honorable Anthony J. Romano, Associate Circuit Judge of Jackson County. Mr. Heflin contends that Judge Romano erred by finding him to be in criminal contempt for violating orders which were beyond the jurisdiction of the court which issued them, since Mr. Heflin could not be held in contempt for violating void orders. Mr. Heflin also contends that the underlying orders were issued in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and that the order of criminal contempt was erroneous because he received defective notice of the underlying show cause hearing, and because there was no evidence of willfulness or contumacy on his part.

In a companion case, *State ex rel. Mohart v. Romano,*924 S.W.2d 587 (Mo.App.W.D.1996), this court ruled that a similar order of contempt issued against Mr. Heflin’s supervisor was void because it was based upon the violation of underlying orders which were themselves coram non judice and void. That case is controlling here.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted, and Mr. Heflin is ordered discharged.

All concur.
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Cody Resources, Inc. for the quarter                ended May 31, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended May 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of Cody Resources,                Inc. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/                Donald Sampson                                                            |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Donald                L. Sampson                                                                   |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  July                19, 2007                                                                       |
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Farnsworth v. Burkhart, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5816.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-5816

FARNSWORTH ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BURKHART ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Farnsworth v. Burkhart, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5816.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of Corban v. Chesapeake 

Exploration, L.L.C., and Dodd v. Croskey. 

(No. 2014-1909—Submitted August 31, 2016—Decided September 15, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Monroe County, 

No. 13 MO 14, 2014-Ohio-4184. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of 

Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-5796, 

___ N.E.3d ___, and Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St.3d 293, 2015-Ohio-2362, 37 

N.E.3d 147. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, 

JJ., concur. 

O’NEILL, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion. 
Supreme Court of Ohio 

2

PFEIFER, J., dissents. 

_________________ 

O’NEILL, J., concurring in judgment only. 

{¶ 2} I concur in judgment only. I would hold that the 1989 version of the 

Ohio Dormant Mineral Act, former R.C. 2301.56, Sub.S.B. No. 223, 142 Ohio 

Laws, Part I, 981, operated on a rolling look-back period. Consistent with my 

dissenting opinion in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio5793, ___ N.E.3d ___, I would also hold that the 1988 recorded deed at issue in 

this case that transferred the surface estate to Virgil and Theresa Farnsworth while 

indicating the reservation of the mineral interest held by Veronica Burkhart was a 

qualifying title transaction and therefore a saving event under the 1989 version of 

the Dormant Mineral Act. Thus, there was no abandonment of the mineral interest 

prior to the effective date of the 2006 version of the Dormant Mineral Act, 2006 

Sub.H.B. No. 288. Accordingly, the mineral holders’ 2012 claim to preserve that 

was filed after the Farnsworths filed a notice of abandonment under the 2006 

Dormant Mineral Act was sufficient to prevent abandonment under the 2006 

version of the law. 

_________________ 

 Theisen Brock, L.P.A., James S. Huggins, Daniel P. Corcoran, and 

Kristopher O. Justice, for appellants. 

 Stubbins, Watson, & Bryan Co, L.P.A., Mark W. Stubbins, and Grant J. 

Stubbins, for appellees. 

_________________
|Exhibit 24.2
|------------

CERTIFIED RESOLUTIONS

Certified to be a true and correct copy of the resolutions
adopted by the Board of Directors of PMA Capital Corporation at a meeting held
on February 5, 2003, a quorum being present, and such resolutions are still in
full force and effect as of this date of certification, not having been amended,
modified or rescinded since the date of their adoption.

RESOLVED, that the
Officers of the Company, and each of them, are hereby authorized to sign the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, and any amendments
thereto, (the Form 10-K) in the name and on behalf of the Company and as
attorneys for each of its Directors and Officers.

RESOLVED, that each
Officer and Director of the Company who may be required to execute (whether on behalf of
the Company or as an Officer or Director thereof) the Form 10-K, is hereby authorized to
execute and deliver a power of attorney appointing such person or persons named therein
as true and lawful attorneys and agents to execute in the name, place and stead (in any
such capacity) of any such Officer or Director the Form 10-K and to file any such power
of attorney together with the Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
the Company, this 20th day of March, 2003.

| | /s/ Charles A. Brawley, IIICharles A. Brawley, IIIAssistant Secretary
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(SEAL)

---
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Arthur BROWN, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 64472.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Aug. 23, 1994.

S. Paige Canfield, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and CRIST and CARL R. GAERTNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant was convicted of one count of sodomy under § 566.-060, RSMo 1986, and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree under § 566.100, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the sodomy charge and one year for the sexual abuse charge to be served consecutively.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward RIEFLE, Appellant. Edward RIEFLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 61949.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 3, 1995.

Tal’at M. Bashir, St. Louis, Steven J. Harris, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., MÍ-chelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Edward Riefle, appeals from a jury conviction of six counts of delivering a controlled substance pursuant to RSMo § 195.211.1 (Supp.1993) for which appellant was sentenced to a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.1 We affirm.

Appellant contends the trial court plainly erred in failing to *sua sponte*sever the offenses and allow appellant a separate trial on each charged criminal action. Appellant admits his error in neglecting to file a motion to sever the offenses with which he was charged. Rule 24.07 and RSMo § 545.885.2 (Supp.1994) are dispositive on this point. Rule 24.07 states in pertinent part: “An offense shall be ordered to be tried separately *only*if: (a) A party files a written motion requesting a separate trial of the offense.” (emphasis added). RSMo § 545.885.2 states: “If it appears that a defendant ... is substantially prejudiced by a joinder of the offenses for trial, upon a written motion of the defendant ... *and*upon a particularized showing of substantial prejudice, the court may grant a severance....” (emphasis added). As appellant neglected to complete the necessary requirement of filing a motion to sever, we find no error here. Point denied.

Next, appellant argues plain error in the trial court’s submission of instruction number four defining “reasonable doubt” as “firmly convinced”. Every appellate court in this state has considered and denied this claim of error. We refuse to give it additional consideration at this time. Point denied.

As we find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit *702court’s order pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

1

. Although appellant initially tiled a direct appeal and an appeal based upon a denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, appellant has failed to brief any issues related to his Rule 29.15 appeal. Such points are deemed abandoned. *State v. Simmons,*861 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo.App.E.D.1993).
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 93 

Honoring the Armed Forces from the Inland Empire in California and their 

families for their extraordinary sacrifices serving the United States in 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2009 

Mr. BACA (for himself, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. FILNER, 

Mr. ISSA, Mrs. BONO MACK, and Mr. DREIER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the Armed Forces from the Inland Empire in 

California and their families for their extraordinary sacrifices serving the United States in Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Whereas the Armed Forces includes all branches of the military, including the National Guard and Reserves; 

Whereas more than 1,811,843 members of the Armed Forces 

have been deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom or 

Operation Iraqi Freedom since September 2001; 

Whereas over 512 Californians have died in Afghanistan and 

Iraq, many of whom were from the communities of the 

Inland Empire; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 93 IH 

Whereas over 3,477 Californians have been wounded in battle 

in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of whom are from the 

communities of the Inland Empire; 

Whereas both physical and mental injuries sustained during 

combat have a life-altering impact on those who served 

our Nation, as well as their families; 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces from the Inland Empire have been killed and injured in operations to bring 

peace and stability, in the name of democracy; 

Whereas the Inland Empire region of southern California includes the counties of San Bernardino and Riverside, and 

unincorporated areas of Muscoy and Etiwanda; and 

Whereas members of the Armed Forces from the Inland Empire have served honorably in their mission to fight terrorism and protect the greater security of the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes that the members of the Armed 

3 Forces from the Inland Empire gave, and continue 

4 to give, to our Nation; 

5 (2) commits to providing wounded warriors 

6 with the highest quality of medical care available, in7 cluding for their families during the recovery proc8 ess; 

9 (3) commends the actions of private citizens 

10 and organizations from the Inland Empire who vol11 unteer to support America’s wounded warriors; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 93 IH 

1 (4) encourages Members and all citizens to take 

2 steps to show support and appreciation for all re3 turning troops; 

4 (5) honors and recognizes the sacrifices made 

5 by the members of the Armed Forces from the In6 land Empire, and that of their families; and 

7 (6) understands that the American people are 

8 forever grateful to the members of the Armed 

9 Forces from the Inland Empire for the service they 

10 have provided to the United States. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 15, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 15, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0468. ANTHONY S. TRICOLI v. ROB WATTS et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14CV4911