alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Independent Director Compensation Program



 Exhibit 10(b) 
 Magellan Midstream Holdings GP, LLC 
 Non-management Director Compensation Program 

 

					
	 	  	 Compensation
	  	 Timing of Payment(1)

	 Annual Board Retainer:(2)
 Cash
 Common Units
	  	 $30,000
 $50,000(3)
	  	Paid semi-annually as of January 1st and June 1st
	 Annual Chairman Retainer:
 Audit Committee
 Conflicts Committee
	  	 $15,000
 $10,000
	  	Paid semi-annually as of January 1st and June 1st
	 Meeting Fees:
 Board Meeting Fees
 Committee Meeting Fees
	  	 $1,500 per meeting
 $1,500 per meeting
	  	Paid semi-annually as of June 1st and December 1st

  

	(1)	For newly elected directors, the annual board retainer and annual chairman retainer, if applicable, are payable pro-rata for the year of election. Directors who resign prior to a
payment date will receive a pro-rata annual board retainer and annual chairman retainer at time of resignation. 

  

	(2)	Non-management directors also serving on the board of directors of Magellan GP, LLC will only receive 50% of the annual board retainer. 

  

	(3)	Number of common units determined based on the closing price on the semi-annual payment date or, if the semi-annual payment date is not a business day, the business day immediately
preceding such semi-annual payment date.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LAMIA JACOBS,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN THORNTON and MARGARET THORNTON,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-985

[January 7, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Gerald Joseph Curley, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 2017-CA008154-XXXX-MB.

Yvette Trelles of Trelles & Bichler, LLC, North Palm Beach, and James 

I. Glasser of Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, Connecticut, for appellant.

Eric D. Isicoff, Teresa Ragatz and Christopher M. Yannuzzi of Isicoff 

Ragatz, Miami, and Robert D. Critton, Jr. and J. Chris Bristow of Critton 

Luttier Coleman, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT P. CARICO,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Case No. 08-14570

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

JEFFREY WOODS,

Respondent.

________________________________/

JUDGMENT

Robert P. Carico (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions in Jackson County Circuit Court for

felonious assault, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm in 2005. In an

Opinion and Order issued on this date, the Court held that Petitioner is not entitled to

habeas corpus relief. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Petitioner’s application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED WITH

PREJUDICE. 

DATE: February 23, 2011 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:08-cv-14570-PJD-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 02/23/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1793
2

Copies to:

Robert Carico, #214910

Pine River Correctional Facility

320 N. Hubbard

St. Louis, MI 48880

Jerrold E. Schrotenboer, Esq.

2:08-cv-14570-PJD-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 02/23/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1794
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eugene LEWIS, Appellant.

No. 64124.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Feb. 7, 1995.

Talat Bashir, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John R. Watson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Eugene Lewis appeals from his conviction for sale of a controlled substance, a class B felony under § 195.211, R.S.Mo. Cum.Supp.1993, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

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).
#### Charles and Diana JOHNSTON, Respondents, v. Margaret SCARBROUGH, Appellant.

No. WD 49180.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 6, 1994.

Joseph Roper, Kansas City, for appellant.

James R. Hall, Oak Grove, for respondents.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Margaret Scarbrough, appeals following a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Charles and Diana Johnston. Defendant complains that the court erred in failing to grant a mistrial after the investigating officer injected insurance into the case when he testified to insurance papers he located in the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant further claims the trial court erroneously instructed the jury.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-37347) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan and the Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of Pervasive Software Inc. of our report dated July 17,
1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and related
financial statement schedule of Pervasive Software Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 1998.



                                        /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Austin, Texas
September 25, 1998
#### Allen Ray WOOLERY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51880.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*606ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief -without an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 21

Power-One, Inc.List of Subsidiaries

NAMED ENTITY

JURISDICTION/COUNTRYPower-One Energy Solutions Pty Ltd.


AustraliaPower-One BVBA


BelgiumPower-One Limited


Cayman IslandsPower-One Co. Ltd.


ChinaPower-One Asia Pacific Electronics (Shenzhen)
 Co. Ltd.


ChinaPower-One Renewable Energy (China) Co.,
 Ltd.


ChinaPower-One I/S


DenmarkPower-One Denmark ApS


DenmarkPower-One OY


FinlandPower-One S.A.S.


FrancePower-One GmbH


GermanyPower-One Ltd.


Hong KongPower-One Ireland Ltd.


IrelandPower-One Italy S.p.A.


ItalyPower-One Energy Solutions SDN BHD


MalaysiaPower-One B.V.


NetherlandsPower-One Norge AS


NorwayPower-One AS


NorwayPower-One Limited Liability Company


RussiaPower-One Pte. Ltd.


SingaporePower-One s.r.o.


SlovakiaPower-One Power Solutions AB


SwedenPower-One AG


SwitzerlandPower-One Limited


United KingdomP-O Delaware, Inc.


USAP-O Nevada Corp.


USAPAI Capital LLC


USAPower-One Renewable Energy
Solutions LLC.


USAPower-One Renewable Energy Solutions
Europe LLC.


USAPower-One Renewable Energy Solutions Asia
Pacific LLC


USA




---



QuickLinks
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Donald R. HOLTZMAN, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 62079.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 8, 1994.

Robert E. Steele, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant, appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stacy L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff, respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of one count of passing a bad check, § 570.120, RSMo 1986. The jury verdict assessed a fine, the amount to be determined by the court. The court fined defendant $7,881.94 plus court costs. It stayed execution of the fine for thirty days. If defendant made full restitution within that period, the fine would be reduced to $3,915.97. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.-25(b).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 4, 2014

No. 04-13-00612-CV

Sage M. BARRERA and Jenesey Barrera,

Appellants

v.

Dean T. CHERER,

Appellee

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CV-0077

Charles Ramsay, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ second motion to amend brief is hereby GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on March 4, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
[Cite as State v. Flannery, 2021-Ohio-37.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

GERALD FLANNERY, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2020-07-073 

D E C I S I O N 

 1/11/2021 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT 

Case No. 20CRB00493 

Neal D. Schuett, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, 345 High Street, 2nd Floor, 

Hamilton, OH 45011, for appellee 

Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Gerald Flannery, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of 

proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon 

the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 
Butler CA2020-07-073 

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous. 

M. POWELL, P.J., S. POWELL and PIPER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.5


                                 CERTIFICATION

                         Chase Manhattan RV Owner Trust
                          Series 1997-A (the "Trust")

I, William L. Schumm, an Executive Vice President in charge of the servicing
function of The CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc., as servicer for the
above-referenced Trust, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
         Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
         of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the
         Trust;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
         report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the sale
         and servicing agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in
         these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
         under the sale and servicing agreement and based upon my knowledge and
         the annual compliance review required under the sale and servicing
         agreement and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has
         fulfilled its obligations under the sale and servicing agreement; and

5.       This annual report discloses all significant deficiencies relating to
         the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
         upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
         conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
         Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
         sale and servicing agreement, that is included in this annual report.





Date:    March 28, 2003

/s/ William L. Schumm
-----------------------------------
Name:    William L. Schumm
Title:   Executive Vice President
The CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KATHLEEN LEAVEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DETROIT, ET AL., 

Defendants.

Case No. 09-11288

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

 /

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on June 23, 2010,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case shall be DISMISSED.

Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 24th_______ day of June , 2010.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: S/Lisa M. Ware

 Deputy Clerk

Approved:

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-11288-AJT-VMM Document 69 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

              CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        (AN INDIRECT WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.)

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                             -------------------------------------
                                              2001    2002    2003    2004    2005
                                             -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
<S>                                          <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Net income.................................  $  67   $ 120   $ 129   $ 144   $ 193
Income taxes...............................     58      88      59      87     116
Capitalized interest.......................     --      (1)     (1)     (2)     (1)
                                             -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
                                               125     207     187     229     308
                                             -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
Fixed charges, as defined:
   Interest expense........................    155     154     179     178     176
   Capitalized interest....................     --       1       1       2       1
   Interest component of rentals charged to
      operating expense....................     11      10       9      10      11
                                             -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
   Total fixed charges.....................    166     165     189     190     188
                                             -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
Earnings, as defined.......................  $ 291   $ 372   $ 376   $ 419   $ 496
                                             =====   =====   =====   =====   =====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.........   1.76    2.25    1.99    2.20    2.64
                                             =====   =====   =====   =====   =====
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 21**SUBSIDIARIES OF MERCANTILE BANK CORPORATIONMercantile Bank of Michigan, a Michigan banking corporation     Wholly-owned bank subsidiary of Mercantile Bank CorporationMercantile Bank Capital Trust I     A Delaware business trust subsidiary of Mercantile Bank CorporationMercantile Bank Mortgage Company, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company     99% owned by Mercantile Bank of Michigan and 1% owned by Mercantile Insurance Center, Inc.Mercantile Insurance Center, Inc, a Michigan business corporation     Wholly-owned subsidiary of Mercantile Bank of MichiganMercantile Bank Real Estate Co., LLC, a Michigan limited liability company     99% owned by Mercantile Bank of Michigan and 1% owned by Mercantile Insurance Center, Inc.All five of the subsidiaries named above with the exception of Mercantile Bank Capital Trust I wereorganized under the laws of the State of Michigan. Mercantile Bank Capital Trust I was organizedunder the laws of the State of Delaware.
1
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 23, 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, October 23, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0110. MICHAEL CATO v. COURTNEY D. PARKER. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2016CV00731
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE AS SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CAI International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Victor M. Garcia, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, certify that:



|(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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 6, 2010



By:

/s/ VICTOR M. GARCIAVictor M. GarciaSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   I, Jeffery Thompson, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Solutions Mechanical, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;    5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.    Date: May 15, 2007   /s/ Jeffery Thompson Jeffery Thompson Title: President and Chief Financial Officer  2
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kent W. CARR, Appellant. Kent W. CARR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50326.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 6, 1996.

Judith C. LaRose, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Jefferson City, Christina L. Thompson, Asst. Attorney General, Kansas City, for Respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This consolidated appeal is from a conviction for sale of a controlled substance and from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of a Rule 29.15 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgments affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).