alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

                      SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION FOR DIRECTORS
                          OF PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION

     Each director of Park National Corporation ("Park") who is not an employee
of Park or one of its subsidiaries (a "non-employee director") receives, on the
date of the regular meeting of the Park Board of Directors held during the
fourth fiscal quarter, an annual retainer in the form of 120 common shares
awarded under the Park National Corporation Stock Plan for Non-Employee
Directors of Park National Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Directors' Stock
Plan"). Each non-employee director also receives $750 for each meeting of the
Board of Directors of Park attended and $300 for each meeting of a committee of
the Board of Directors attended. If the date of a meeting of the Board of
Directors is changed from that provided for by resolution of the Board of
Directors and a non-employee director is unable to attend the rescheduled
meeting, he or she receives $750 as though he or she had attended the meeting.

     Each non-employee director of Park also serves on the board of directors of
one of Park's banking subsidiaries, and receives, on the date of the regular
meeting of the Park Board of Directors held during the fourth fiscal quarter, an
annual retainer in the form of 60 common shares of Park awarded under the
Directors' Stock Plan and, in some cases, a specified amount of cash for such
service as well as fees for attendance at meetings of the board of directors of
the appropriate Park banking subsidiary (and committees of that board).
1The inmate request slips dated 7/12/05, 1/5/05, 2/3/05,

4/4/05 and 2/28/05 as scanned are largely unreadable and should

be produced in hard copy at the hearing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregory Alan Gaylor

v. Civil No. 05-cv-339-PB

United States of America,

President, et al.

O R D E R

 Petitioner moves to enjoin Respondent Commissioner of the

New Hampshire Department of Corrections from interfering with

telephone and mail communication with his Swiss counsel. The

motion has been referred to me for a Report and Recommendation. 

An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2006 at 10:00

a.m.1

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 18, 2006

cc: Gregory A. Gaylor, pro se

 Peter E. Papps, Esq.

 Simon R. Brown, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00339-PB Document 34 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.a  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Edward Munden, certify that: (1)I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of DataJungle Software Inc.;  (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 operation and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods represented in this report;  (4)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  (5)The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant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.  /s/Edward Munden Edward Munden President & Chief Executive Officer Date: May 15, 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30712 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CR-55-1-A

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Nelson, federal prisoner #02461-095, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Nelson’s request for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. See United States v. Dyer , 136 F.3d 417, 429 n.32 (5th Cir. 1998) “The writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available to a petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to vacate a criminal conviction in circumstances where theNo. 00-30712 -2- petitioner can demonstrate civil disabilities as a consequence of the conviction, and that the challenged error is of sufficient magnitude to justify the extraordinary relief.” Jimenez v. Trominski , 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Nelson is still in custody, he is not entitled to coram nobis relief. His appeal is therefore DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7771 WINSTON V. AUTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN EMERY, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-6214 WINSTON V. AUTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICKIE ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-900-5-CT-BO, CA-96-57) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 19962 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston V. Auton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewedthe records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Auton v. Emery , No. CA-95-900-5-CT-BO, and Auton v. Robinson, No. CA-96-57 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 1995 and Jan. 26, 1996).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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1104 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1104

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
 to provide, in the case of an employee welfare benefit plan providing 
benefits in the event of disability, an exemption from preemption under 
 such title for State tort actions to recover damages arising from the 
          failure of the plan to timely provide such benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
 to provide, in the case of an employee welfare benefit plan providing 
benefits in the event of disability, an exemption from preemption under 
 such title for State tort actions to recover damages arising from the 
          failure of the plan to timely provide such benefits.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION. 1. EXEMPTION FROM ERISA PREEMPTION FOR STATE CAUSES OF ACTION 
              IN TORT TO RECOVER DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE FAILURE OF A 
              PLAN PROVIDING BENEFITS IN THE EVENT OF DISABILITY TO 
              TIMELY PROVIDE SUCH BENEFITS.

    Section 514(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1144(b)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new 
        paragraph:
    ``(9) Subsection (a) shall not be construed to preclude, in the 
case of an employee welfare benefit plan providing benefits in the 
event of disability, any cause of action in tort under State law to 
recover damages arising from the failure of such plan to timely provide 
such benefits.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
failures occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. CR. 05-156-01-SM

George Curran,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Curran’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document no. 11). Trial has been rescheduled for the month

of March 2006. Defendant Curran shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than December 23, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:05-cr-00156-SM Document 12 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for February 22, 2006 at 

4:00 p.m. in Room 421. 

Jury selection will take place on March 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 15, 2005

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Debra M. Walsh, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00156-SM Document 12 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT  32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18****of the United States Code**

I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

 

|   |   |   |                                                                                         |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ E. James Ferland                                                                         |
|   |   |   |                                                                                              |
|   |   |   | E. James FerlandPublic Service Electric and Gas CompanyChief Executive OfficerAugust 1, 2003 |

 

----
Order entered January 22, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01015
- CR
MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F94
- 03570
- TK 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s January 7, 2013 motion to set the case for submission without argument

. Our record reflects that appellant filed his brief on November 27, 2012. The State’s brief was due by Decemb er 27, 2012, but was not filed. Nor has the State sought an extension of time to file its brief, and the case has been set at issue. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent that the appeal will be set for submission on the next available

n o argument docket.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         316,807
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,920,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                   872,553
<INVENTORY>                                 14,500,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,547,455
<PP&E>                                      60,702,973
<DEPRECIATION>                              32,396,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,946,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,675,686
<BONDS>                                     36,505,521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,446
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,694,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,946,111
<SALES>                                     67,776,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,745,596
<CGS>                                       53,905,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               66,992,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,978,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,225,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   490,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (735,449)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (735,449)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,712
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                       620
<INVENTORY>                                     10,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,176
<PP&E>                                          58,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,202
<BONDS>                                         23,159
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,866
<COMMON>                                         3,101
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,527
<SALES>                                         48,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,454
<CGS>                                           37,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,040
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    836
<INCOME-TAX>                                       309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                202
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       202
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.b    CERTIFICATION  I, Larry Bruce, Principal Financial Officer of Blink Logic Inc. (the Company), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: May 15, 2008/s/Larry Bruce
Larry Bruce
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6524

RAJUL RUHBAYAN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Judge; ROBERT B. KING, Judge; ALLYSON K. 

DUNCAN, Judge; WILLIAM W. WILKENS, Judge; DAVID LEU, Warden,

 

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:20-ct-03115-BO)

Submitted: October 26, 2020 Decided: November 17, 2020

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rajul Ruhbayan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rajul Ruhbayan appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Ruhbayan v. Smith, No. 5:20-ct-03115-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 2020). We deny Ruhbayan’s 

motion to suspend proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-139583 and333-139582 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 17, 2008, relating to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule of ORBCOMM Inc. (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to changes inthe method of accounting for uncertain tax positions, effectiveJanuary 1, 2007 and the method of accountingfor stock-based compensation effective January 1, 2006), and the effectiveness of ORBCOMM Inc.’s internal control overfinancial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ORBCOMM Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2007./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPNew York, NY
**EXHIBIT 99.11**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18****of the United States Code**

I, Thomas M. O’Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG Power LLC.

  

|   |   |   |   |                                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |        |   |   | /s/ Thomas M. O’Flynn                                             |
|   |   |   |   |                                                                        |
|   |   |   |   | Thomas M. O’FlynnPSEG Power LLCChief Financial OfficerMay 2, 2003 |
#### Clarion County Poor District *v.*Summerville, Appellant.

Argued Oct. 18, 1907.

Appeals, Nos. 134, 135 and 136, Oct. T., 1907, from order of O. P. Clarion Co., Feb. T., 1906, No. 148, discharging rule-to set aside auditors’ report and strike off judgment against county commissioners in case of Clarion County Poor District v. J. A. Summerville, G. W. Texter and J. S. Saxton.

Before Mitchell, C. J.., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

[Reversed.

March 2, 1908 :

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

For the reasons given in the opinion this day filed for re*154versing the judgments appealed from, ante, p. 148, the order of the court below in discharging the rule to show cause why the judgment against these appellants should not be stricken from the record is reversed. The judgment is stricken from the record, the costs below and on this appeal to be paid by the appellee.