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



 Exhibit 10.45 
  
 Summary of Director Compensation Arrangement 
  
 Director Compensation. The Compensation and Leadership Committee of the Board of Directors reviews director compensation
annually. As of November 9, 2005, director compensation is as follows. Each non-employee director of the Company receives (i) an annual retainer of $40,000 paid in cash, Class A common stock or deferred stock units, and (ii) an
annual equity grant of $60,000 paid in Class A common stock or deferred stock units with a one year vesting restriction. In addition, the chairperson of each Board Committee receives the following annual cash compensation to reflect their added
responsibilities: Audit Committee - $15,000; Compensation and Leadership Committee - $10,000; and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee - $5,000. The Board’s lead director receives annual compensation of $5,000 in cash.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


         We hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference in the
Prospectus (the "Prospectus") constituting a part of the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 filed by Queen Sand Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), under the Securities Act of 1933, of information contained in our
reserve reports relating to the proved oil and natural gas reserves and future
net revenues of oil and natural gas reserves as of June 30, 1995 and 1996 and
estimates relating to the NASGAS Properties (as defined in the Prospectus) at
June 30, 1997 and all references to such report letters and/or this firm in
such Prospectus and (ii) further consent to our being named as an expert
therein in the section titled "Experts."


                                                HARPER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                                /s/ G.M. Harper
**Exhibit 10(h)**

 

**SUMMARYDESCRIPTION OF TRUSTEES’ COMPENSATION**

** **

The compensation paid toeach Individual Trustee and the Corporate Trustee is set forth in the Amendmentto the Agreement of Trust, dated as of October 25, 1982 (the “Amendment”).  The Amendment is filed as Exhibit 3(a) tothe Form 10-K.

 

Pursuant to the Amendment,each Individual Trustee receives at least $20,000 in annual compensation forservices as Trustee.  Each year, annualTrustee compensation is adjusted up or down (but not below $20,000) inaccordance with changes from the November 1981 level of 295.5 (the “1981Escalation Level”) in the All Commodities Producer Price Index (with 1967 = 100as a base).  The All Commodities ProducerPrice Index is published by the U.S. Department of Labor.  The adjustment is made at the end of eachfiscal year and is calculated on the basis of the proportion between (a) thelevel of such index for the November preceding the end of such fiscalyear, and (b) the 1981 Escalation Level. Each of the Individual Trustees received $35,995 in cash compensationfor services to the Trust during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009.

 

Also pursuant to theAmendment, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Corporate Trustee,receives annual compensation in an amount equal to the greater of (i) $20,000,or such other amount determined in accordance with the adjustments described inthe preceding paragraph, or (ii) one quarter of one percent (1/4 of 1%) ofthe Trust Moneys, exclusive of proceeds of sale of any part of the Trust Estate(as such terms are defined in the Agreement of Trust), received by the Trusteesand distributed to Trust Unitholders. The Corporate Trustee earned $94,628 in cash compensation pursuant tothis provision for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2009.

 

Additionally, each year the Corporate Trusteereceives $62,500 (or more, if unanimously approved by the Individual Trustees)to cover clerical and administrative services to Mesabi Trust other thanservices customarily performed by a registrar or transfer agent.  In fiscal year 2009, the Trust paid theCorporate Trustee $62,500 for such services.

 

----
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION**

**The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:**

(1) The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2006, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|Date:July 28, 2006 |  | /s/ DENNIS J. STEVERMER                    
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------
|                   |  | Dennis J. Stevermer                        
|                   |  | Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 Magnitude Information Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the "Form
10-Q"), I, Joerg H. Klaube, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, as
of the date hereof, 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 myknowledge, that the
Company's Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-Q, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
      14, 2009
            /s/  Joerg H.
      KlaubeJoerg
      H. Klaube, Chief Financial
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                             949,884
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      798,961
<ALLOWANCES>                        29,500
<INVENTORY>                        958,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 2,898,411
<PP&E>                           9,129,134
<DEPRECIATION>                   2,566,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  11,590,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            1,611,882
<BONDS>                          4,203,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               67,986
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                         2,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                       3,207,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    11,590,902
<SALES>                          7,077,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    75,992
<CGS>                            5,217,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 1,811,437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 202,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (77,176)
<INCOME-TAX>                         1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (78,176)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                       (78,176)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
Amendment to 1996 Director Stock Option Plan


 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Amendment to 1996 Director Stock Option Plan 
  
 Section 6 of the 1996 Director Stock Option Plan shall be revised to read in full as follows: 
  
 “Term of Plan. The Plan was adopted on the Offering Date. The
Plan shall continue in effect until December 5, 2016, unless sooner terminated pursuant to Section 12 of the Plan.”
#### William Damm v. Samuel Moon et ux.

*Correction of deed,*— Inchoate *dower rights*— Party.

The owner of three adjacent lots, one of which was on a corner and each of which was 40 feet wide, had his house partly on the corner lot, leaving 38 feet of it unoccupied. In deeding a parcel on the corner he described it as 40 feet in width, but afterwards claimed that he had only sold 30 feet and filed a bill to have the deed corrected. The grantee did not pretend that he supposed that he was buying any part of his grantor’s house. *Held,*that in view of the evidence a decree correcting the deed would not be disturbed.

The wife of a grantee of land has an inchoate right of-dower which would be affected by a decree correcting the deed, and she may therefore be properly joined as defendant to a bill filed for that purpose.

Appeal from Wayne.

Submitted June 6.

Decided June 14.

Bill to correct deed. Defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Moore, *Canfield <& Warner*for complainants.

*Ward & Palmer*for defendants.

*511Campbell, J.

Damm filed his bill to have a deed corrected, which, as he claims, purported to convey an entire lot of 40 feet in. width, when he only sold 30 feet to defendant. The lot described in the deed is a lot fronting on Third street, Detroit, cornering on Orange street, and is one of three lots each of 40 feet in width, which were owned by Damm in February, 1S80, when the bargain was first discussed. Dainm’s house was built partly on this corner lot and partly on the next lot, leaving about 33 feet of the corner lot vacant, and leaving about three feet space between the house and the parcel which he claims was all that he sold to Moon. After the purchase Moon put up two buildings just covering the space of 30 feet. When the deed was, as complainant claims, discovered to be incorrect, Moon claimed that he was entitled to the entire lot, and refused to consent to any change in its terms, although he says he offered to reconvey the whole on payment for his improvements.

Upon a review of the testimony, we think that it leaves no ground to doubt the correctness of complainant’s claim. Moon denies any understanding that he was to have only 30 feet, but he does not pretend he supposed he was buying any part of Dainm’s house, and his testimony concerning his own acts is not calculated to strengthen the defence. The positive testimony not only of the direct agreement, but of corroborating circumstances, is very convincing that only a parcel of 30 feet in width of entirely vacant land was within the understanding of the parties. We think the view of the circuit judge, who saw and examined the witnesses himself, is justified by the testimony, and that he was right in decreeing a correction of the deed. It is objected that the wife of Moon was improperly joined as a defendant. We need not determine whether she was a necessary party or not. She has at any rate an inchoate right of dower in her husband’s lands, and this would be affected by the decree. She was properly joined.

The decree must be affirmed with costs.

Graves, O. J. and Cooley, J. concurred.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4469

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations to the Secretary of the

Immigration Station in the State of California.Interior for the restoration of the Angel Island

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4469

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior

for the restoration of the Angel Island Immigration Station in the State of California.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4469 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Angel Island Immigra3 tion Station Restoration and Preservation Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

5 The Congress makes the following findings:

6 (1) The Angel Island Immigration Station, also

7 known as the Ellis Island of the West, is a National

8 Historic Landmark.

9 (2) Between 1910 and 1940, the Angel Island

10 Immigration Station processed more than 1,000,000

11 immigrants and emigrants from around the world.

12 (3) The Angel Island Immigration Station con13 tributes greatly to our understanding of our Na14 tion’s rich and complex immigration history.

15 (4) The Angel Island Immigration Station was

16 built to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882

17 and subsequent immigration laws, which unfairly

18 and severely restricted Asian immigration.

19 (5) During their detention at the Angel Island

20 Immigration Station, Chinese detainees carved

21 poems into the walls of the detention barracks. More

22 than 140 poems remain today, representing the

23 unique voices of immigrants awaiting entry to this

24 country.

25 (6) More than 50,000 people, including 30,000

26 schoolchildren, visit the Angel Island Immigration
3

•HR 4469 EH

1 Station annually to learn more about the experience

2 of immigrants who have traveled to our shores.

3 (7) The restoration of the Angel Island Immi4 gration Station and the preservation of the writings

5 and drawings at the Angel Island Immigration Sta6 tion will ensure that future generations also have the

7 benefit of experiencing and appreciating this great

8 symbol of the perseverance of the immigrant spirit,

9 and of the diversity of this great Nation.

10 SEC. 3. RESTORATION.

11 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

12 are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the

13 Interior $15,000,000 for restoring the Angel Island Immi14 gration Station in the San Francisco Bay, in coordination

15 with the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation

16 and the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

17 (b) PRIORITY.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph

18 (2), the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be

19 used for the restoration of the Immigration Station Hos20 pital on Angel Island.
4

•HR 4469 EH

1 (2) Any remaining funds in excess of the amount re2 quired to carry out paragraph (1) shall be used solely for

3 the restoration of the Angel Island Immigration Station.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
From: Michael Rich 

Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:19 PM

To: CSF-SCRM-RFI <CSF-SCRM-RFI@nist.gov>

Subject: RFI: Evaluating and Improving Cybersecurity Resources: The Cybersecurity Framework and 

Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management

Hi,

I’m very happy you are starting the updating process for CSF. I was wondering if I would need to move 

to a new framework. I have been using and assessing against the CSF framework for the past 4 years.

I recommend the following controls be eliminated or modified because I do not feel the measurably 

reduce risk. When I state “measurably reduce risk” I am referring to a quantifiable reduction in either 

probability of loss event or the magnitude of the loss. I have fully implemented quantitative risk 

methods (in the manner of FAIR or Hubbard’s “How to Measure Anything in Cybersecurity Risk”). The 

controls listed below have no impact on my risk measurements. 

They may be “nice to have” but they are distractions from controls with real impact on risk

- ID.BE-1: The organization’s role in the supply chain is identified and communicated

o Perhaps its just the “communicated” portion of this. I just don’t see how the staff 

knowing where they are in the supply chain reduces risk

- ID.BE-3: Priorities for organizational mission, objectives, and activities are established and 

communicated

o This is a managerial control for “team spirit” and has no impact on risk

- RS.CO-5: Voluntary information sharing occurs with external stakeholders to achieve broader 

cybersecurity situational awareness

o In a sense I suppose this is an attempt to reduce risk to the entire industry, but it 

doesn’t actually do that.

o Many (most) companies do not allow openly sharing this info as a matter of liability 

control

My final comment is to not fall for the hype and do not include a “Zero Trust” control in the next 

iteration. This is a buzzword term with little consensus on meaning and no identifiable framework. If 

you must include concepts that come from discussions of “Zero Trust” please list the technical control 

specifically and do not just put: “Implement Zero Trust”. Try something like: “All applications must 

positively assert authentication”

Thank you for your time
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 Quarterly Report of Magnitude Information Systems, Inc.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Form
      10-QSB"), I, Edward Marney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      as
      of the date hereof, 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,
      that the Company's Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
      August 18, 2007    /s/
       Edward Marney


Edward
      Marney


President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT 21.1

                                   Subsidiary

                             





                              AudioNet Corporation
PROMISSORY NOTE

DATE:                               September 20, 2005

MAKER:                              Local Telecom Systems, Inc.

MAKER'S
MAILING ADDRESS:                    7738 Forest Lane, Suite 102
                                    Dallas, Texas 75230

PAYEE:                              Ivan Webb

PLACE FOR PAYMENT:                  P.O. Box 31
                                    Cisco, Texas 76437

PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:                   $53,378.94

SECURITY:                           7,000,000 post split common shares of Local
                                    Telecom Systems, Inc.

                                    150,000 Series D Warrants to purchase
                                    restricted post split common shares of Local
                                    Telecom Systems, Inc. at $0.20 a share
                                    expiring September 20, 2008.

ANNUAL INTEREST
RATE ON UNPAID
PRINCIPAL:                          None

DUE DATE:                           November 4, 2005

TERMS OF PAYMENT
(principal and interest):           Principal payable on or before November 4,
                                    2005. This Note may be prepaid without
                                    penalty.

Maker promises to pay to the order of Payee at the Place for Payment and
according to the Terms of Payment the Principal Amount as stated above. As
consideration and compensation for making this loan, Maker shall receive shall
receive and Payee shall issue 150,000 Series D Warrants to purchase restricted
post split common shares of Local Telecom Systems, Inc. at $0.20 a share
expiring September 20, 2008.

If Maker defaults in the payment on this Note and the default continues after
Payee gives Maker notice of the default then the Maker shall immediately issue
to Payee 7,000,000 restricted post split common share of Local Telecom Systems,
Inc. Payee may declare the unpaid principal balance on this Note immediately
due. Maker and each surety, endorser, and guarantor waive all demands for
payment, presentations for payment, notices of intention to accelerate maturity,
notices of accelerations of maturity, protests, and notices of protest, to the
extent permitted by law.

<PAGE>

Notice of default is all that is required to cause Local Telecom Systems, Inc.
to issue the 7,000,000 shares of its post split common stock to Payee.

Maker is responsible for all obligations represented by this Note. When the
context requires, singular nouns and pronouns include the plural.


                                        MAKER:
                                        LOCAL TELECOM SYSTEMS, INC.


                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        By: William R. Miertschin, President


                                        PAYEE:


                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Ivan Webb
ct Tolerance Representation:

cal Requirements for Product/

Process Interoperability

www.metrosage.com 
T: Critical... and Overlooked

g: a true semantic GD&T representation 

/PLM products 

this needed? 

roper part tolerancing 

teroperability with downstream applications 

tandards allow for the creation of 

e tools that solve universally held 

ms 
Cost of a Design Error
Interoperability is Key
New Possibilities for 

Software Innovation
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21

               Texas Equipment Corporation's List of Subsidiaries

          Names of Subsidiaries                   State of Incorporation
          ---------------------                   ----------------------

          Texas Equipment Co., Inc.               Texas
          New Mexico Implement Company, Inc.      New Mexico