alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.37



 Exhibit 10.37 
 MeadWestvaco Corporation 
 Compensation Program for Non-Employee Directors

 Effective April 22, 2013, the compensation program for non-employee directors of MeadWestvaco Corporation has been modified and the form
and amount of compensation consist of the following components: 
  

	 	(1)	Following the annual meeting of shareholders, all non-employee directors are awarded MeadWestvaco stock units valued at $100,000 which track the performance of
MeadWestvaco common stock. The stock units are distributed to directors on termination of Board membership in shares of MeadWestvaco common stock. 

  

	 	(2)	Following the annual meeting of shareholders, all non-employee directors receive an annual cash retainer of $75,000. In addition, non-employee directors also receive an
annual cash retainer based on their service as follows: 

  

	 	a.	Members of the Audit Committee (other than the Chair) receive an annual cash retainer of $10,000. 


 

	 	b.	The Chair of the Audit Committee receives an annual cash retainer of $25,000. 


 

	 	c.	The Chair of the Compensation and Organization Development Committee receives an annual cash retainer of $20,000. 


 

	 	d.	The Chair of each other standing Committee of the Board of Directors receives an annual cash retainer of $15,000. 


 

	 	e.	The lead director receives an annual cash retainer of $30,000. 

 Annual cash retainers are payable in a lump sum. Non-employee directors may elect to defer all or a portion of their annual cash retainer.
905 A.2d 872

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LUTHER C. THOMAS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 4, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cal Dive International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Quinn J. Hébert, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Brent D. Smith, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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) 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:   May 4, 2011











/s/ Quinn J. HébertQuinn J. HébertChairman, President and

Chief Executive Officer











/s/ Brent D. SmithBrent D. SmithExecutive Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer

and Treasurer








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.





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT
32.2


OFFICERS’
CERTIFICATIONS


Certification
of Chief Financial Officer







Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Douglas Emmett, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:






(i)
            the
      accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
      ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and






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







Date:  May
      5, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      WILLIAM KAMERWilliam
      KamerChief
      Financial Officer







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.






The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN JOSE MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 71456

Agency No. A095

- 737

- 543

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 12, 2021 * *

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Juan Jose Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of I m migrati on Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal

.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 13

- 71456

Padilla

- Martinez v. Holder , 770 F.3 d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We deny the

petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Martinez’s application for cancellation of

removal, where Martinez failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his

convictions do not render him ineligible for relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (B),

(C); s ee also Pereida v. Wilkinson , 141 S. Ct. 754, 760 (2021) (applicant bears the

burden of establishing eligibi lity for discretionary relief, including that he has not

been convicted of certain disqualifying offenses)

.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Martinez ’s contentions regarding

the remaining factors for eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Simeonov v.

Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the agency are not

required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unneces sary to the

results).

T he stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
---

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, Roger Gordon, Principal Executive Officer of
Pure Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that, to his knowledge:

| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
      the period ended March 31, 2008 (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.                                                                                           

Dated: May 20, 2008

/s/ Roger
Gordon
Roger Gordon Principal Executive Officer

_____________________________

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.

---
Case 2:11-cr-00075-DMC Document 17 Filed 08/25/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 41
Case 2:11-cr-00075-DMC Document 17 Filed 08/25/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 42
Case 2:11-cr-00075-DMC Document 17 Filed 08/25/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 43
Case 2:11-cr-00075-DMC Document 17 Filed 08/25/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 44
Case 2:11-cr-00075-DMC Document 17 Filed 08/25/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 45
#### In the Matter of Alida Rempe, Appellant, v Vincent Rempe, Respondent.

[851 NYS2d 890]

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 412, “[a] married person is chargeable with the support of his or her spouse and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for his or her support a fair and reasonable sum, as the court may determine, having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties.” The determination of a husband’s support obligation depends on the particular circumstances of the case, including his financial means, his need to have money with which to live after payments are made, the duration of the marriage, and the wife’s ability to support herself *(see Matter of Christian v Christian,*5 AD3d 765, 766 [2004]; *Matter of Mastrogiacomo v Mastrogiacomo,*149 AD2d 708, 709 [1989]).

Based upon our review of the record, the evidence warrants a maintenance award to the wife in the sum of $2,130 per month.

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
#### J.G. Wentworth S.S.C. Limited Partnership et al., Plaintiffs, v Gregory V. Serio, Defendant. FL Assignments Corp., Intervenor-Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 439]

In an action to determine the rights and obligations with respect to certain “structured settlement” annuities, the intervenor-appellant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated February 2, 2005, as, sua sponte, revoked the admission pro hac vice of its primary counsel, Kenneth J. Nachbar, a Delaware attorney.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, revoked the admission pro hac vice of Kenneth J. Nachbar is deemed an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the admission pro hac vice of Kenneth J. Nachbar is reinstated.

“The policy of this state is to give recognition to ‘a party’s entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of *762its choosing’ ” *(Giannotti v Mercedes Benz U.S.A., LLC,*20 AD3d 389, 390 [2005], quoting *Zutler v Drivershield Corp.,*15 AD3d 397 [2005]). Having previously granted admission pro hac vice to the intervenor-appellant’s Delaware attorney, the Supreme Court abused its discretion in revoking that admission without a scintilla of support in the record for the revocation. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### BAKER et al. v. MIDTOWN BUS TERMINAL OF NEW YORK, Inc. (BUS DEPOT HOLDING CORPORATION, Third Party Defendant).

District Court, S. D. New York.

June 5, 1942.

William McKelvey, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Abraham J. Halprin, of New York City, for Bus Depot Holding Corporation.

Lexow & Jenkins, of Suffern, N. Y., for Midtown Bus Terminal of New York, Inc.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The third party defendant and the defendant move to stay plaintiff from taking the oral testimony of the defendant, pursuant to a notice to take deposition. The motion also requests that the production of certain books and records in conjunction with the examination, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, be stayed.

With respect to the examination before trial, it appears to be the desire of the moving parties to examine the plaintiff prior to submitting the defendant to an examination. The plaintiff had served his notice first and is entitled to an examination first. While this rule is not inflexible, nothing has been presented which impels the court to vary from the accepted practice. ■

With respect to the production of books and records in conjunction with the examination, the defendant contends that plaintiff has not complied with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, in failing •to ask for the production of the records by motion. Nevertheless, the defendant has expressed a willingness to have the ■ court pass upon what books and records should be produced in order to save time. In view of this, the court will treat this phase of the motion as if made pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court will grant items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, and will deny the remaining items *71set forth in the notice for the production of the books and records.

Settle order on notice.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

)

WAYNE PUFF ) Civil Action No.: 11-072 (JLL) 

)

Plaintiff, ) NOTICE AND ORDER

)

v. )

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 )

Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

TO: WAYNE PUFF, #29375050

 FCI Beaumont Low

 P.O. Box 26020

 Beaumont, TX 77720

You have filed a pro se pleading challenging your federal sentence. The Third Circuit

Court of Appeals has decided the case of United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999). 

Pursuant to that decision, this is to advise you that under federal law, a person seeking relief in

federal court form confinement resulting from conviction in that court must include in a single

petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255, all potential claims for which he or she desires to seek review

and relief, because a second or successive habeas petition under Section 2255 must be dismissed

unless certain very specific and rare circumstances exist, see 28 U.S.C. §2244. Therefore, please

note that:

a. You may have your pleading ruled upon as filed; or

b. You may have your pleading recharacterized as a Section 2255 motion and heard

as such. If you do, however, you will lose your ability to file a second or

successive pleading absent Certification by the Court of Appeals; or

c. You may withdraw your pleading and file an all inclusive Section 2255 petition

subject to the one (1) year period described by the Antiterrorism Effective Death

Penalty Act [“AEDPA”] in 28 U.S.C. §2255.

You have forty-five days from today’s date within which to advise the Court as to your

decision. If you fail to notify the Court, your pleading and motion will be ruled upon as filed. 

DATED: May 9, 2011

/s/ Jose L. Linares 

JOSE L. LINARES, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-00072-JLL Document 2 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 16
 

Case 2:11-cv-00072-JLL Document 2 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 17
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 WESTCORP CERTIFICATION OF CFO In connection with the Annual Report of Westcorp (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, to the best of
his knowledge and belief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, 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 and 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. The foregoing Certification is furnished solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose. WESTCORP /s/ Mark K. OlsonMark K. Olson
Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 Date:
    

March 11, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1242 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1242

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that bonds used to 
   finance professional stadiums are not treated as tax-exempt bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 30, 2019

  Mr. Booker (for himself and Mr. Lankford) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that bonds used to 
   finance professional stadiums are not treated as tax-exempt bonds.

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

SECTION 1. NO TAX-EXEMPT BONDS FOR PROFESSIONAL STADIUMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Professional stadium bond.--Any professional stadium 
        bond.''.
    (b) Professional Stadium Bond Defined.--Section 103(c) of such Code 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Professional stadium bond.--The term `professional 
        stadium bond' means any bond issued as part of an issue any 
        proceeds of which are used to finance or refinance capital 
        expenditures allocable to a facility (or appurtenant real 
        property) which, during at least 5 days during any calendar 
        year, is used as a stadium or arena for professional sports 
        exhibitions, games, or training.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**
**WESTCORP**
**CERTIFICATION OF CFO**
In connection with the Annual Report of Westcorp(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief and pursuantto 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.
The foregoing Certification is furnished solelyfor purposes of complying with the provisions ofSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intendedto be used for any other purpose.
**WESTCORP**
Date: March 4, 2004
/s/ LEE A. WHATCOTTLee A. WhatcottExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andChief Operating Officer(Principal Financial andAccounting Officer)
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1268 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that hospitals 

receive adequate payment for the acquisition of hematopoietic stem cells 

under the Medicare program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. BURR, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. SCOTT of South 

Carolina) 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 ensure 

that hospitals receive adequate payment for the acquisition of hematopoietic stem cells under the Medicare program, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Patient Access to Cel5 lular Transplant Act’’ or the ‘‘PACT Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1268 IS

1 SEC. 2. HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL ACQUISITION PAY2 MENTS. 

3 Section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

4 1395ww) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a)(4), in the second sentence, 

6 by inserting ‘‘for cost reporting periods beginning on 

7 or after October 1, 2020, costs related to 

8 hematopoietic stem cell acquisition for the purpose 

9 of an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant 

10 (as described in subsection (d)(5)(M)),’’ after ‘‘Octo11 ber 1, 1987),’’; 

12 (2) in subsection (d)— 

13 (A) in paragraph (4)(C)(iii)— 

14 (i) by inserting ‘‘or payments under 

15 paragraph (5)(M) (beginning with fiscal 

16 year 2021)’’ after ‘‘fiscal year 1991)’’; and 

17 (ii) by inserting ‘‘or payments under 

18 paragraph (5)(M)’’ before the period at the 

19 end; and 

20 (B) in paragraph (5), by adding at the end 

21 the following new subparagraph: 

22 ‘‘(M)(i) For cost reporting periods beginning on or 

23 after October 1, 2020, in the case of a subsection (d) hos24 pital that furnishes an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell 

25 transplant to an individual during such a period, payment 

26 to such hospital for hematopoietic stem cell acquisition 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1268 IS

1 shall be made on a reasonable cost basis. The items in2 cluded in such hematopoietic stem cell acquisition shall be 

3 specified by the Secretary through rulemaking. 

4 ‘‘(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 

5 ‘allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant’ means, with 

6 respect to an individual, the intravenous infusion of 

7 hematopoietic cells derived from bone marrow, peripheral 

8 blood stem cells, or cord blood, but not including embry9 onic stem cells, of a donor to an individual that are or 

10 may be used to restore hematopoietic function in such in11 dividual having an inherited or acquired deficiency or de12 fect.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
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



I, Gordon Clayton, the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of Find The World Interactive, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008 (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.







Date: November 10, 2008



/s/ Gordon Clayton

--------------------------------

Name: Gordon Clayton

Title: Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and

Chief Accounting Officer