alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MHRForm8-K-Item502 Exhibit 10.1
















EUREKA HUNTER HOLDINGS, LLC
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


AWARD LETTER


__________, 2014
[Participant]
__________________
__________________


		
	Re:
	Participation in the Eureka Hunter Holdings, LLC Equity Incentive Plan


Dear [Participant]: 
You have been selected, as of the date written above (the “Grant Date”), by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Eureka Hunter Holdings, LLC (the “Company”) to receive an award (the “Award”) pursuant to this Award Letter (the “Award Letter”) in consideration of and appreciation for your continued services and contribution to the Company and its affiliates.  This Award is being granted to you pursuant to the Equity Incentive Plan contemplated by the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Company, dated as of March 12, 2012, as the same may be amended or supplemented from time to time (the “LLC Agreement”).  
This Award is comprised of: 
		
	•
	[_____] Class B Common Units, with a Baseline Value of $20.00, which Class B Common Units are subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Class B Common Unit Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Class B Agreement”) and in the LLC Agreement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C; and 


		
	•
	[_____] Incentive Plan Units, with each such Incentive Plan Unit corresponding to one of the Class B Common Units issued pursuant to the Class B Agreement, which Incentive Plan Units are subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Eureka Hunter Holdings, LLC Management Incentive Compensation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Incentive Plan”).    




Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Incentive Plan or, if not defined in the Incentive Plan, in the LLC Agreement.  
By executing this Agreement, you indicate that you have read, understand, and agree to the terms of this Award Letter, the Class B Agreement, the LLC Agreement and the Incentive Plan.  Please execute and return a copy of this Agreement to the Company no later than _________, 2014, to indicate your acceptance of these terms and conditions.  The Company will not make any payment to you with respect to any part of the Award and you will not otherwise be entitled to receive any part of the Award unless 







the Company has received a signed copy of this Agreement acknowledging your acceptance of the terms and conditions applicable to the Class B Common Units and the Incentive Plan Units.  
The Company is very pleased to be able to offer this Award to you and truly appreciates your dedication and commitment to the Company.  We are excited about the future and look forward to your success and that of our team.  


                        
EUREKA HUNTER HOLDINGS, LLC


By: _________________________________    
Name: Gary C. Evans
Title: Chief Executive Officer




ACCEPTED:


____________________________
[Participant]
____________________________
 Date



2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PEOPLES FINANCIAL CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 I, Chevis C. Swetman, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the
accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 and
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant
to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the
Company fully complies with the requirements of that section. I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material aspects, the financial operations and results of operations of
the Company. By:
    
    /s/ Chevis C. Swetman

Chevis C. Swetman,Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 10, 2004Date
#### Richard Earl JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45858.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1973.

Buddy Stevens, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., and Phyllis Bell and Ronald G. Woods, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of robbery by assault; punishment was assessed by the jury at 18 years confinement.

The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The only ground of error on appeal is the contention that a mistrial should have been granted, during the punishment stage of the trial, when appellant was not identified as the same Richard Earl Jackson who had previously been convicted of theft-from-person and received a five year probated sentence.

The record reflects that at the penalty stage of the trial Billy Owens, a Deputy District Clerk of Harris County, was called as a witness by the state. He produced a certified copy of a judgment and sentence in a cause showing that a Richard Earl Jackson had been convicted of theft-from-person, in Harris County, and received a five year sentence, probated. The witness was unable to identify appellant as being that same person.

A Harris County Adult Probation Officer was called as a witness and he too was unable to identify appellant as being the same person that was on probation on the theft-from-person conviction. His files showed that he had interviewed a Richard Earl Jackson twice, but he was not appellant’s regular probation officer.

The court then sustained objection to the testimony of these two witnesses and instructed the jury to disregard their testimony. A motion for a mistrial was overruled.

Appellant argues that the court’s instruction could not cure the error and relies on Vessels v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 432 S.W.2d 108, where it is stated:

> “While such certified copies of the judgments and sentences were clearly admissible if appellant’s identity had been established, their mere introduction standing alone was not sufficient to identify the appellant as the person so formerly convicted. In light of the objection, the State’s failure to go further and show by independent testimony that appellant was the identical person convicted under each of the ten judgments and sentences constitutes reversible error.”

*159Unlike Vessels v. State, supra, the objection in the case at bar was sustained.

The record fails to show any bad faith *on the*part of the prosecution. We hold that the instruction cured the error.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Asia Global Holdings Corp., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Asia Global Holdings Corp. and will be retained by Asia Global Holdings Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





Date:
      January 11, 2011
              /s/ Mr. Ping-Shun LaiMr.
      Ping-Shun Lai, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                Financial
      Officer
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 12, 2009*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.217 Total Mortgages** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

400 

CA 14-00180 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

CARMEN BRITT AND CARMEN BRITT, AS EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF LULA BAITY, DECEASED, 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ELAINE 

GARBE, BISILOLA F. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF JERELENE ELIZABETH GIWA, DECEASED, 

GRACE MANOR HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., DAVID J. 

GENTNER, MARY STEPHAN, KATHY RANDALL, TIFFANY 

MATTHEWS AND PHILLIP J. RADOS, M.D., 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

LOUIS ROSADO, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

ROACH, BROWN, MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C., BUFFALO (ELIZABETH G. ADYMY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT PHILLIP J. RADOS, M.D. 

FELDMAN KIEFFER, LLP, BUFFALO (ADAM C. FERRANDINO OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS GRACE MANOR HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., DAVID

J. GENTNER, MARY STEPHAN, KATHY RANDALL AND TIFFANY MATTHEWS.

COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C., BUFFALO (JOHN J. MARCHESE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS BUFFALO MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, ELAINE 

GARBE AND BISILOLA F. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JERELENE

ELIZABETH GIWA, DECEASED. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y.

Devlin, J.), entered February 6, 2013. The order denied the motion of

plaintiff for recusal. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff contends on appeal that Supreme Court

erred in denying her recusal motion. It is well established that,

“[a]bsent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a Trial

Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal . . . A court’s decision in this

respect may not be overturned unless it was an abuse of discretion”

(People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406). Contrary to plaintiff’s

contention, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in
-2- 400 

CA 14-00180 

denying the motion (cf. People v Warren, 100 AD3d 1399, 1400). 

Plaintiff’s allegations that the court exhibited bias in favor of

defendants and prejudice against her are contradicted by the record. 

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BRUCE NEWMAN.

October 29, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD HARMON.

November 12, 1985.

Petition for certification granted. (See 203 *N.J.Super.*216)
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934





In connection with the Annual Report of Ohr Pharamceutical, Inc (the Company) on Form 10K for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof )the Report), I, Andrew Limpert, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and President 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:



|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Dated:January 14, 2010







/s/  ANDREW LIMPERT

Name:Andrew Limpert



Title:Interim Chief Executive Officer
#### Ted R. OSBORNE et al., Appellants, v. Wilma CROUCH et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 19, 1973.

John W. Collis, Anggelis & Vimont, Lexington, for appellants.

Raymond Francis Connell, Paris, for ap-pellees.

Opinion of the Court by

Special Commissioner J. DOUGLAS GRAHAM,

Affirming.*
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LARRY HAGLER.

September 5, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Advance Display Technologies, Inc.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Matthew W.
      Shankle


Matthew
      W. Shankle


President,
      Chief Executive and Financial Officer





November
      14, 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. 03-31056 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTONIO ARNEZ EASTERLY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 03-CR-10007-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Antonio Arnez Easterly has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Easterly has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. The appeal is DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mlntteb ~tate~ ~ourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI (!Circuit

ALEXSAM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

IDT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant.

2012-1063, -1064

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas in case no. 07-CV-0420, Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham.

ON MOTION

Before LINN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Alexsam Inc. moves for leave to file a surreply brief to

address arguments raised by IDT Corporation ("IDT") for

the first time in its reply brief and to strike certain

arguments related to demonstrative aids and

reexamination materials from IDT's reply brief and from
ALEXSAM v. IDT CORP 2

the joint appendix. IDT consents to a surreply limited to

the issue of judicial estoppel and moves for leave to file a

surreply ofits own. Alexam replies.

Concerning the motion to strike, IDT states that it

requested in its brief that the court take judicial notice of

reexamination materials. The court treats Alexsam's

motion to strike as a response to the request for judicial

notice and defers that matter to the merits panel.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) Alexsam's motion to file a surreply is granted.

Alexsam may file a surreply brief limited to the issue of

judicial estoppel and not to exceed 7 pages. Alexsam's

surreply is due within 14 days of the date of this order.

(2) The motion to strike is deferred for consideration

by the merits panel. Copies of the document shall be

transmitted to the merits panel.

(3) IDT's motion to file a surreply is denied.

FOR THE COURT

JAN 03 2013

Date

cc: Timothy P. Maloney, Esq.

Glen E. Summers, Esq.

s25

lsI Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

FILED

us. COURT OF APPEALS FOR • THE FEDEf!~! """!r,IJIT

JAN U32013

JAN HORBALY

CLERK
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD MARSHALL.

September 17, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### TOM DE VITIS v. NEW JERSEY RACING COMMISSION.

October 3, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See 202 *N.J.Super.*484)
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

November 16, 1998

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

We are aware that Cyprus Amax Minerals Company has included our report dated
November 16, 1998 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing
Standards No. 71) in the Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1998, which is incorporated by reference in each of the following:

  (a) Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-1600, 33-22939 and 33-53792)
      with respect to Cyprus Amax Minerals Company Savings Plan and Trust.

  (b) Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-1603, 33-21501 and 33-53794)
      with respect to the Management Incentive Program of Cyprus Amax Minerals
      Company and its participating subsidiaries.

  (c) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-52812) with respect to the
      Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors of Cyprus Amax Minerals Company.

  (d) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-51011) with respect to the 1988
      Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan of Cyprus Amax Minerals Company.

  (e) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-61141) with respect to the
      Cyprus Amax Minerals Company Thrift Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees.

  (f) Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3
      (No. 33-36413) with respect to the Cyprus Amax Minerals Company Savings
      Plan and Trust.

  (g) Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3
      (No. 33-54097), as amended,  with respect to Cyprus Amax Minerals Company
      and Cyprus Amax Finance Corporation.

  (h) Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3
      (No. 33-54097) with respect to Cyprus Amax Minerals Company $250 million 7
      percent Notes due May 15, 2007.

  (i) Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3
      (No. 33-62145) with respect to Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Cyprus
      Amax Finance Corporation $600 million Shelf Registration.

We are also aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.

Yours very truly,



/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Exhibit 32

          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
                               OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002,  that the  Quarterly  Report of National  Investment  Managers  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that information  contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 14, 2007                   /s/ Steven Ross
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Steven Ross
                                           Chief Executive Officer


Dated: November 14, 2007                   /s/ John Schroepfer
                                           -----------------------------
                                           John Schroepfer
                                           Interim Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2187 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2187

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a five-
 year extension of the rural community hospital demonstration program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 31, 2014

  Mr. Begich introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a five-
 year extension of the rural community hospital demonstration program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Community Hospital 
Demonstration Extension Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE RURAL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 
              DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    (a) Extension.--Section 410A of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 42 
U.S.C. 1395ww note), as amended by sections 3123 and 10313 of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(5), by striking ``5-year extension 
        period'' and inserting ``10-year extension period''; and
            (2) in subsection (g)--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Five-
                Year'' and inserting ``Ten-Year'';
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``additional 5-
                year'' and inserting ``additional 10-year''; and
                    (C) by striking ``5-year extension period'' each 
                place it appears and inserting ``10-year extension 
                period''.
    (b) Change in Timing for Report.--Subsection (e) of such section 
410A is amended by striking ``Not later than 6 months after the 
completion'' and inserting ``Not later than 1 year prior to the 
completion''.
                                 <all>
```
#### JONES v. WAINWRIGHT

No. 457P00

Case below: 139 N.C.App. 450

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 20 December 2000.