alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1




Summary of 2009 Non-Employee Director Compensation




The 2009 compensation program for non-employee directors of UDR, Inc. consists of a
combination of cash retainers for board and committee service and long-term incentives in the form
of service-based restricted stock.



For 2009, each non-employee director will receive an annual retainer fee of $50,000 ($100,000
for a non-employee chairman of the board of directors). Non-employee directors, other than
committee chairpersons, also receive an annual retainer fee of $7,500 for each committee on which
they serve. The chairpersons of each of the Audit, Compensation and Governance Committees receive
an annual retainer fee of $15,000. Non-employee directors who are members of the Executive
Committee, other than the Chairman of the Board, also receive an annual retainer fee of $7,500 for
their service on the Executive Committee and the Chairperson of the Executive Committee, other than
the Chairman of the Board, receives an annual retainer fee of $15,000. These fees will be paid in
January 2009.



On January 5, 2009, each non-employee director also received a grant of $90,000 in value of
shares of restricted stock ($180,000 for a non-employee chairman of the board of directors) priced
at the average closing price for the trailing 20 days ended January 5, 2009. The shares of
restricted stock will vest on the anniversary of the date of grant. Directors are entitled to
receive dividends during the vesting period; however, any unvested shares at the end of the
one-year vesting period will be returned to us and cancelled.



Directors who are also employees of UDR, Inc. receive no additional compensation for service
as a director.
Exhibit 32.1


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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Industrial Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W.
Campbell Birge, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.

March 28, 2007                         /s/ W. Campbell Birge
                                       -----------------------------------
                                           W. Campbell Birge
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer







<PAGE>
#### DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, INC., and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Francisco Soto FUERTE, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5499.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 28, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 2011.

R.G. McCormick, Jr., of the Bleakley Law Firm, Tampa, for Appellants.

Jane-Robin Wender of Jane-Robin Wender, P.A., Delray Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, Claimant requested an alternate primary care provider (PCP) under the parties’ managed care arrangement (MCA), but was dissatisfied when the Employer/Carrier (E/C) agreed to authorize one of only three PCPs whose names it provided Claimant. Claimant then filed a petition for benefits seeking to choose a PCP from any of the multiple PCPs participating in the provider network. The E/C now appeals from the order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarding authorization of a PCP “from among the provider network” and entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs for the prosecution of that benefit. Because the question presented has been resolved by *Mack v. Westminster Suncoast Manor,*929 So.2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we reverse the order. Specifically, in both cases, although the JCC had jurisdiction over the petition for benefits because the claimant exhausted the grievance procedure, the terms of the MCA govern resolution of the petition. Here, as in *Mack,*because the E/C did not deny treatment but only limited the claimant’s choice of provider in the manner prescribed by the applicable MCA, Claimant’s petition should have been dismissed.

REVERSED.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                           1,743,186
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      127,935
<ALLOWANCES>                       (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                        290,539
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 2,219,543
<PP&E>                           1,282,713
<DEPRECIATION>                  (1,038,723)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   3,344,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              664,742
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                        13,707,259
<OTHER-SE>                     (11,027,969)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     3,344,042
<SALES>                          1,216,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 1,216,357
<CGS>                              160,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      160,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 1,305,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 (19,753)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (275,290)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (275,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                      (275,290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.04)
        


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.4

CERTIFICATION OF 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, Mary Dridi, the Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
President of webMethods, Inc. (the Company), has executed this certification
in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of
the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2003 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

|                    |  |  |  |                                                                                                          
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 18, 2003 |  |  |  | /S/ MARY DRIDIName:  Mary Dridi
Title:   Chief Financial Officer and
            Executive Vice President
EX-10.4






Exhibit 10.4




FIRSTAMENDMENT TO THE

COMMUNITY FIRST BANK AND TRUST

2006 MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN




     WHEREAS, Community First Bank and Trust the (“Bank”) sponsors the Community First Bank and
Trust 2006 Management Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the Bank desires to amend the Plan to make changes required or permitted by Section
409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations promulgated thereunder.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, effective as of January 1, 2009, the Bank
hereby amends the Plan in the following respects:




1. Section VIII.C. is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




	 	C.	 	Distributions of Awards






Payments will be made upon recommendation by Senior Bank Management and approval of
the Board of Directors and shall occur between January 1 and March 15 following the
completion of the management incentive compensation year. Any undistributed funds
will revert to the Bank and the fund will terminate.




2. Section VIII.J. (Deferral Option) is deleted in its entirety and is reserved for the
addition of future language to the Plan. As a result of such deletion, participants may not
defer the receipt of any management incentive award earned under the Plan.




3. Section IX.K. is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




	 	K.	 	Distributions of Awards






Payments will be made upon approval by Senior Bank Management and shall occur
between January 1 and March 15 following the completion of the incentive
compensation year. Any undistributed funds will revert to the Bank and the fund
will terminate.




4. Section IX.R. (Deferral Option) is deleted in its entirety and is reserved for the
addition of future language to the Plan. As a result of such deletion, participants may not
defer the receipt of any incentive award earned under the Plan.



1









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment to the Plan as of the
date first stated above.



COMMUNITY FIRST BANK AND TRUST




  By: Marc Lively

  Its: President and CEO





2
#### First National Bank v. G. S. Beck.

(No. 3395.)

Appeal from Collin County.

Opinion by

Walker, P. J.

§ 832. *Negotiable instrument; possession of, carries title, when, against real owner; case stated.*Beck sold to appellant a promissory note payable to Lucetta Bear’d *732or bearer,— representing that said note was his property. At the time of the purchase the three days’ grace on the note had not expired. Lucetta Beard was in fact the real owner of the note, and recovered the same of appellant. Appellant then brought this suit against appellee to recover the amount it had paid him for said note. A general demurrer was sustained to its petition and the suit dismissed. *Held:*The gist of the plaintiff’s cause of action was in the damage it sustained by the false and alleged fraudulent representations made by the defendant which induced the plaintiff to purchase the note, which plaintiff alleges was not the property of defendant but belonged to Lucetta Beard, the payee of said note. The note was negotiable, and was payable to the payee named in it, or to bearer. If the plaintiff acquired the note while it was current and negotiable,— before due, for a valuable consideration in the due course of trade and without notice of defect of title, or of any defense that might be urged against it,— it would have acquired a good title thereto, and could have collected the note not: withstanding the real ownership was in another. The possession, under such circumstances, of a negotiable instrument payable to bearer, carries title to the holder, and imports that he is the owner thereof, entitled to recover the full amount against the maker. [1 Daniel’s Neg. Insts. §§ 769a, 812.] If the plaintiff acquired the note under these conditions, it could not have been injured by the alleged false and fraudulent representations of the defendant as to his ownership of the note.

§ 833. *Dqys of grace; note is not due until expiration of.*The note was payable on January 1, 1883. Appellant acquired it from appellee January 3, 1883,— which was within the three days of grace allowed by law *“*on all bills of exchange and promissory notes assignable or negotiable by law.” [R. S. art. 276.] *Held:*1. The note was acquired by appellant before its maturity. [Watkins v. Wells, 58 Tex. 523; ante, § 270; Crosby v. Grant, 36 N. H. 273; Fox v. Bank, 1 Pac. Rep. 791; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. *733§ 614.] 2. Appellant by said purchase acquired a valid title to the note, against Lucetta Beard, the true owner thereof. [R. S. arts. 265, 272.]

May 11, 1885.

Affirmed.
#### Rachelle JEFFERSON v. LA CAR MART, LLC.

No. 2011-C-0140.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re La Car Mart LLC; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, Monroe City Court, No. 2009CV00742; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,812-CA.

Denied.
<PAGE>

OWOSSO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Three Months Ended                 Nine Months Ended
                                                               -----------------------------      ------------------------------
                                                                  July 30,         August 1,         July 30,          August 1,
                                                                    2000             1999              2000              1999
<S>                                                                  <C>              <C>               <C>               <C>
BASIC:

Net income (loss) available for common stockholders            $   (85,000)      $   779,000      $   (351,000)      $ 1,402,000
                                                               ------------      -----------      -------------      -----------
Weighted average number
     of common shares outstanding                                5,850,000         5,830,000         5,842,000         5,824,000
                                                               ------------      -----------      -------------      -----------
Basic earnings (loss) per common share                         $     (0.01)      $      0.13      $      (0.06)      $      0.24
                                                               ------------      -----------      -------------      -----------

DILUTED:

Net income (loss) available for common stockholders            $   (85,000)      $   779,000      $   (351,000)      $ 1,402,000
                                                               ------------      -----------      -------------      -----------
Weighted average number
     of common shares outstanding                                5,850,000         5,830,000         5,842,000         5,824,000

Dilutive effect of stock options                                        --            38,000                --            29,000
                                                               ------------      -----------      -------------      -----------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                    5,850,000         5,868,000         5,842,000         5,853,000
                                                               ------------      -----------      -------------      -----------
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share                       $     (0.01)      $      0.13      $      (0.06)      $      0.24
                                                               ------------      -----------      -------------      -----------
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Annual Report of Mindesta, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K

 A-1

 for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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 operation of the Company.



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





Date:

June 8,

 2015



By: /s/ Pankaj Modi

Pankaj Modi

Chief Executive Officer
#### ALL CRANE RENTAL OF GEORGIA, INC. v. Ricky VINCENT d/b/a Tree Surgery by Ricky Vincent.

No. 2010-C-2227.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Vincent d/b/a, Ricky; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 88,089; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0116.

Denied.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Anastasios PATSAS, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 13, 2011.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s sua sponte order dismissing a 1985 felony charge filed against Anastasios Patsas. The record reflects that the State did not receive notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to the rendition of the order of dismissal. The fundamental requisites of due process of law are notice and the opportunity to be heard. *See, e.g., Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,*339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

ORDER OF DISMISSAL QUASHED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ, concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ranall D. MAULDIN.

No. 2011-KO-1458.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

*1202In re Mauldin, Ranall D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 08 CR5 98044; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1240.

Denied.
Exhibit 13.1**Certification Pursuant to****18 U.S.C. Section 1350****As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CibaSpecialty Chemicals Holding Inc., a corporation organized underthe laws of Switzerland (the “Company”) for the periodending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:     1.)   the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2.)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Date: January 31, 2006     /s/ Armin Meyer       Armin Meyer     Chairman of the Board and     Chief Executive OfficerDate: January 31, 2006     /s/ Michael Jacobi       Michael Jacobi     Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2

                             Certification Required
            By Rule 13a-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

     I, Larry K. Moxley, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FirstBank NW Corp.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant'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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
     fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
     annual report) that has materially affect, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.

     /s/ LARRY K. MOXLEY
     ------------------------------------------
     Larry K. Moxley, Chief Financial Officer
     Dated:  June 10, 2005
#### STATE of Louisiana v. German A. HERNANDEZ-ZUNIGA.

No. 2012-KO-0028.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Hernandez-Zuniga, German A.;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 10-1911; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-KA-378.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Stetson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and



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



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|February 24, 2005 |  | /s/ ROBERT J. STETSON  
|                  |  | Robert J. Stetson      
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer