alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.351



 Exhibit 10.351 
 SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 The Board of
Directors approved a revised non-employee directors’ compensation program for cash retainers on December 12, 2012. On January 24, 2013, the Board of Directors approved revisions to the equity portion of the compensation program, subject to
stockholder approval at the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. 
 Cash Retainers 

The cash retainer portion of the revised compensation program was effective for non-employee directors beginning January 1, 2013.

 Each non-employee director receives an annual cash retainer in the amount of $100,000. In addition, the Chair of the Audit
Committee receives a supplemental annual cash retainer of $25,000 and each other member of the Audit Committee receives a supplemental annual cash retainer of $10,000. The Chairs of the Compensation Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee and
Risk Committee each receive a supplemental annual cash retainer of $15,000. Each other member of the Compensation Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Risk Committee receives a supplemental annual cash retainer of $5,000.
There are no fees paid for attendance at board or committee meetings. 
 The board retains the discretion to establish special
committees in the future and to pay a special retainer to the Chair and the members of any such special committee. 
 Equity Grants

 Subject to stockholder approval at the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, each non-employee director would receive an
annual equity grant under the 2013 Stock Incentive Plan with an aggregate value of $140,000. The equity grants would be 50 percent in stock options and 50 percent in restricted shares. 

In the event a new non-employee director is elected to the board during the year, a pro-rata retainer amount would be granted to that
individual. 
 Pursuant to the 2013 Stock Incentive Plan that is subject to approval by stockholders at the 2013 Annual Meeting
of Stockholders, the equity grants would vest 25% on the first anniversary of the date of grant, 50% on the second anniversary of the date of grant and 100% on the third anniversary of the date of grant.
#### In the Matter of Vincent A. Sauer, Petitioner, v Michelle Cheney Donaldson et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 610]

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, the agency’s determination must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester*County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). In the instant case, the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights should be confirmed since there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Delta did not deny the petitioner’s application for employment on the basis of age *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). While the petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination, the record supports the Commissioner’s finding that Delta utilized a permissible seniority-based hiring program by which employees were generally hired according to seniority from each specific department *(see Matter of Delta Air Lines v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*91 NY2d 65, *65773-74 [1997]). Delta provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring decision, and the petitioner did not show that this reason was a pretext for discrimination (see *Stephenson v Hotel Empls. & Rest. Empls. Union Local 100 of AFL-CIO,*6 NY3d 265, 271 [2006]; *Matter of Laverack & Haines v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*88 NY2d 734, 738-739 [1996]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Principal****Financial
      Officer**


**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 SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 operations of the Company.





/s/
                Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                C. Pintsopoulos
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              May
                6, 2008
EXHIBIT 23(b)




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form
S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491,
33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273 and Form S-3, Nos.
33-36001 and 333-60175) pertaining to various stock option, employee savings,
deferred compensation and restricted stock plans and a universal shelf
registration statement of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated 28 January 1999,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Wellman
International Limited and subsidiaries at 31 December 1998 and 1997 and for
each of the three years in the period ended 31 December 1998, included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wellman, Inc.






KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors



Dublin, Ireland

15 April 1999
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, on 

behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

-v.-

PETERSON’S NELNET, LLC,

Defendant.

Civil Action

3:11 CV 11 (TJB)

Motion Date: January 26, 2015

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 26, 2015, at 11:30 a.m., or soon thereafter as 

counsel may be heard, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley will 

move before the Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. at the United States District 

Court, Clarkson S. Fisher & & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Courtroom 6E, Trenton, 

NJ 08608, for an order: (1) granting permission to Plaintiff to file a Memorandum of Law in 

Support of a Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Settlement that is 64 pages in length; 

and (2) Granting such further and other relief as this Court deems necessary and just.

Dated: White Plains, New York

 January 20, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC

By: /s/Aytan Y. Bellin 

Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.

White Plains, NY 10606

Tel: (914) 358-5345

Fax: (212) 571-0284

Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 117 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 2116
2

Attorneys for Plaintiff Bais Yaakov of Spring

Valley and the Proposed Class

Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 117 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 2117
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify, under the penalties of perjury, that this document filed through the ECF

system, will be sent electronically to all counsel of record by the ECF system.

DATED: January 20, 2015

/s/ Aytan Y. Bellin

Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.

3

Case 3:11-cv-00011-TJB Document 117 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 2118
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ESTATE OF RALPH F. TITO,

DECEASED

PETITION OF: CAROL J. GALINAC :

:

:

:

: No. 510 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of April, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

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 Quarterly Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer 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.








/S/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzChief Executive OfficerAugust 18, 2010
#### Platt *against*N. & I. Smith.

NEW-YORK,

October, 1817.

Words written in ab arTbythi dwVncimsra-a considered10 as ward, and to reconsiruction, as if inserted in the bwheret' in a copy or connedario one 8of woerdPartMim” bnun the other !hounVl'toh the come time,‘n inserted,<7iTélocopy was held to be immaterial.

THIS was an action of debt on an award, tried before Mr. Justice *Fan Ness,*at the *New-York*sittings, in *November,*1816.

The arbitrators made an award, under their hands and seals, reciting the bond of submission, and by which they awarded the defendants to pay to the plaintiff’ 2,656 dollars and 25 cents, and, also, that on the delivery of the award, they should pay to the arbitrators, 30 dollars, being one halt of the expenses of the arbitrators, &c. and that the parties, on payment of the said sumsi should execute mutual releases, &c. In the *margin*of the awal’d the following words were written by the arbitrators: “ *Gilbert Platt*is to give up the note which he holds against *N. Smith*& *Co.*The store remains joint property. The outstanding debts to be equally divided.’’

A counterpart award was delivered to the defendants, in *which*the word *dollars*was omitted after the words and figures “ two thousand six hundred and fifty-six JyL”—But the other part, in which the word dollars was properly inserted, was, at the time, shown to the defendants.

The jury, under the direction of the judges, found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on the case.

*Johnson,*for the plaintiff.

*P. W. Radcliff,*contra.

*Per Curiam.*

We are of opinion, that the words written in the margin of the award, by the arbitrators, are to be considered as part of the award, and to receive the same construction as if they had been inserted in the body of the instrument. The words form a distinct sentence, and the meaning is the same, whether they be read in one place or another, after any distinct sentence. Besides, these words are merely explanatory of what would have been the operation and effect of the award, if they had not been inserted.

We are of opinion, also, that the omission of the word *dollars*in the counterpart award delivered to the defendants is not *371catal, when taken in connexion with the proof, that the other part, in which there is no such omission, was shown to the defendants when they received the copy of the award. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to judgment for the sum awarded to him, with interest, but not for the thirty dollars, awarded to be paid by the defendants to the arbitrators. There is no evi~ dence that the plaintiff has paid that sum for the defendants; and if he had paid it, it is very questionable whether he could recover it in an action on the award. it does not even appear that the plaintiff has paid his own half of the charges of the arbitrators. A mere liability to pay, without actual payment, gives no right of action by either parly against the other.

Judgment for the plaintiff.
EX-10.17



 EXHIBIT 10.17 
 HUTTIG BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC. 
 EVA EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN

 For the Year 2012 
 GENERAL 
 The awards to participants in the EVA Incentive Compensation Plan, As Amended
January 1, 2004 (the “EVA Plan”) of a Huttig Building Products, Inc. (the “Company”) shall be pursuant to the terms of the EVA Plan, except as set forth below. The amendments to the EVA Plan with respect to the
2012 awards have been approved by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company, upon recommendation of the Management Organization & Compensation Committee of the Board. 

PAYMENT OF 2012 INCENTIVE AWARDS 
  

	•	 	 The 2012 EVA bonus awards shall be paid in full to the participants and no portion of such awards shall be banked or subject to forfeiture provided
that the participant continues to be employed by the Company at the date of payment(s); 


  

	•	 	 The 2012 EVA bonus awards shall be paid on such date or dates in 2013 as determined by the President and Chief Executive Officer at his discretion; and



  

	•	 	 that the payment of any 2012 EVA award is subject to the participant’s continued employment with the Company through the date of payment;
provided, that all 2012 EVA awards shall become immediately payable upon a change in control of the Company, as defined in the Company’s standard change in control agreements. 



 

	 	•	 	 Right to Change Plan  


 The Company reserves the right to modify or terminate the EVA Plan at any time. 
  

	 	•	 	 No Contract of Employment  


 Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a contract of employment between the Company (or any of its subsidiaries) and any participant, or as giving a right to any person to continue in the
employment of the Company or any of its subsidiaries or as limiting the right of the Company or any of its subsidiaries to discharge any participant at any time, with or without cause.
NO. 07-06-0321-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

______________________________ IN RE SIX

HUNDRED TW ENTY-TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS U.S. CURRENCY

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Real party in int ere st, My V an Le, seeks a w rit of mandamus compell ing the tri al court to withdr

aw its or der compelling My Van Le to produce certain federal income tax returns. The real party in interest

bears the burde n of providin g a record sufficient to establish his rig ht to mandamus reli ef. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7(a)(1) ; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 83 7 (Tex. 19 92) (orig. proceeding). In this case the record provided b y the real party in interest is insufficient to esta blish his right to the relief requested. No clerk’s record was prov ided and the appendix to the real party

in interest ’s brief

does not contain all of the necessa ry documents . According ly, the r elief request ed is denied.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice
**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**

|         |                                                                                                                        |                                         |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                                                        |
|    |                                                                                                                   |                                    |
|         |                                                                                                                   | /s/ Anna                Kazanchyan, M.D |
|         | Anna                Kazanchyan, M.D.                                                                                        |
|         | Principal                  Executive OfficerPrincipal                  Financial Officer August                    13, 2007 |

----
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: March 15, 2007
    By:
    /s/ J. Roger Moyer, Jr.J. Roger Moyer, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer 96
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Partnership;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
periods 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, 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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the 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 affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 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; andb)
    
    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.
 Date: March 17, 2006
    
    /s/ Kevin K. Moriarty

Kevin K. MoriartyDirector, Chairman andChief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60179

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TONY D. CRAWFORD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:17-CR-14-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Tony D. Crawford has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Crawford has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Crawford’s claim of ineffective assistance of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 29, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60179 Document: 00514742125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2018
No. 18-60179

2

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to 

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Crawford’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-60179 Document: 00514742125 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2018