alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CNP_Exhibit 10(II)_12.31.2012






Exhibit 10(ll)
 
 
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation
 
The following is a summary of compensation paid to the non-employee directors of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) effective April 26, 2012. For additional information regarding the compensation of the non-employee directors, please read the definitive proxy statement relating to the Company’s 2013 annual meeting of shareholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.
 
		
	•
	Annual retainer fee of $50,000 for Board membership;




		
	•
	Fee of $2,000 for each Board or Committee meeting attended;




		
	•
	Supplemental annual retainer of $15,000 for serving as a chairman of the Audit Committee or Compensation Committee; and




		
	•
	Supplemental annual retainer of $10,000 for serving as a chairman of any other Board committee.




Members of the special CEO Succession Planning Committee receive an annual retainer of $20,000 instead of the compensation listed above for attending committee meetings and/or serving as chairman of any Board committee.


The Chairman receives the compensation payable to other non-employee directors plus supplemental compensation authorized by the board of directors of the Company, as summarized in Exhibit 10(s) to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, which exhibit is incorporated by reference herein.
 
Stock Grants. Each non-employee director may also receive an annual grant of up to 5,000 shares of CenterPoint Energy common stock which vest on the first anniversary of the grant date. Upon the initial nomination to the Board, in addition to the annual grant, a non-employee director may be granted a one-time grant of up to 5,000 shares of CenterPoint Energy common stock.
 
Deferred Compensation Plan. Directors may elect each year to defer all or part of their annual retainer fees, including committee chairman fees, and meeting fees. Directors participating in these plans may elect to receive distributions of their deferred compensation and interest in three ways: (i) an early distribution of either 50% or 100% of their account balance in any year that is at least four years from the year of deferral up to the year in which they reach age 70, (ii) a lump sum distribution payable in the year after they reach age 70 or upon leaving the Board of Directors, whichever is later, or (iii) 15 annual installments beginning on the first of the month coincident with or next following age 70 or upon leaving the Board of Directors, whichever is later.
 
Executive Life Insurance Plan. Non-employee directors who were elected to the Board before 2001 participate in CenterPoint Energy’s executive life insurance plan. This plan provides endorsement split-dollar life insurance with a death benefit of $180,000 with coverage continuing after the director’s termination of service at age 65 or later. Directors elected to the Board after 2000 may not participate in this plan.
AQ 245 D (Rev. 03/01) - Judgment in a inal Case for Revocation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of New Jersey

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vv. Case Number —3:11-mj-5002-01(TJB)
CHAZ MATHIS

Defendant.

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
(For Revocation of Probation or Supervised Release)
(For Offenses Committed On or After November 1, 1987)
The defendant, CHAZ MATHIS, was represented by Andrea Bergman, AFPD.

Violation number 1 has been dismissed.

The defendant admitted guilt to violation number 2 as stated on the violation petition. Accordingly, the court has adjudicated
that the defendant is guilty of the following violation:

Violation Number Nature of Violation

2 ‘Failure to answer inquiries or follow instructions’

As pronounced on October 17, 2013, the defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this Judgment. The
sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

It is ordered that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name,
residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution,
the defendant shall notify the court and United States Attorney of any material change in the defendant's economic circumstances.
Unless modified by this judgment, all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments previously imposed in the judgment filed on
June 6, 2011 remain in full force and effect, if not already paid.

Signed this the _17th day of October, 2013.

Wor.

DOUGLAS E. ARPERT
United States Malistfate Judge

RECEIVED
OCT 17 2013

i |
WILLIAM T. WALSH CLERK


AO 245 D (Rev. 03/01) - Judgment in a Cri | Case for Revocation

Judgment — Page 2 of 2
Defendant: CHAZ MATHIS

Case Number: 3:11-mj-5002-01(TJB)
PROBATION

Itis ordered and adjudged that the offender's term of probation be extended for a period of 90 days subject to all previously
imposed standard and special conditions and shall comply with the following modified/additional special condition:

COMMUNITY SERVICE (150 hours during term of probation)
You shall contribute 150 hours of community service work during term of probation or less, from the date supervision

commences. Such service shall be without compensation, with the specific work placement to be approved by the U.S.
Probation Office.

Upon a finding of a violation of probation or supervised release, | understand that the Court may (1) revoke
supervision or (2) extend the term of supervision and/or modify the conditions of supervision.

These conditions have been read to me. | fully understand the conditions, and have been provided a copy of
them.

of his associate Probation Officers.
(Signed)

Defendant Date

| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| You shall carry out all rules, in addition to the above, as prescribed by the Chief U.S. Probation Officer, or any |
| |
| |
| |
! |
| |
EX-10.25



 Exhibit 10.25 

Amendment to 
 Restricted Share Unit Agreements 
 under the 

SunCoke Energy, Inc. 
 Long-Term Performance Enhancement Plan 
 This Amendment to the Restricted
Share Unit Agreements under the Long-Term Performance Enhancement Plan (the “Plan”) is applicable to all Awards of Restricted Share Units (“RSUs”) made under the Plan that are outstanding as of July 18, 2012. 

Section 1.5 of each Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

	 	“1.5.	Termination of Employment. 

  

	 	(a)	Termination of Employment—In General. Upon termination of the Participant’s employment with SunCoke and its Affiliates for any reason other than
a Qualifying Termination or due to death or permanent disability, the Participant shall forfeit 100% of such Participant’s RSUs that have not vested, together with the related Dividend Equivalents, and the Participant shall not be entitled to
receive any Common Stock or any payment of any Dividend Equivalents with respect to the forfeited RSUs. 

  

	 	(b)	Qualifying Termination of Employment or Termination of Employment Due to Death or Permanent Disability. In the event of the Participant’s Qualifying
Termination or termination of employment due to death or permanent disability, the Participant’s outstanding RSUs immediately shall vest and shall settle within two (2) months following such termination of employment, and the Dividend
Equivalents that correspond to the RSUs that vest pursuant to this sentence shall be paid within two (2) months following such termination of employment. 

 For purposes of this Section 1.5, a Participant shall have a “permanent disability” if he is found to be disabled under the terms of SunCoke’s long-term disability policy in effect at
the time of the Participant’s termination due to such condition or if the Committee in its discretion makes such determination. 
 All other provisions of the Restricted Share Unit Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by the Company this
18th day of July, 2012, effective as of July 18,
2012. 
  

			
	SUNCOKE ENERGY, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Gary P. Yeaw

	Its:	 	Vice President, Human Resources
#### Bank of America, NA, Respondent, v Daniel M. Tobin et al., Defendants, and Veronica Ann Tobin, Sued Herein as John Doe, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 892]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Veronica Ann Tobin, sued herein as John Doe, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), dated February 4, 2004, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, denied her motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered July 28, 2003, upon her failure to appear or answer, and *641to set aside the referee’s sale on the ground that she was not properly served with the summons and complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the appellant by proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (1). Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 13 Filed 04/01/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 972
Case 2:11-cv-01145-DMC-JAD Document 13 Filed 04/01/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 973
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 Forgotten  Investments Company,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending  December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Daniel
L.  Hodges,  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, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President, Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 19, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
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.
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of RADVISION Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Boaz Raviv, 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; 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/ Boaz Raviv*
Boaz RavivChief Executive Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------

June 22, 2008

*     The originally executed copy of
this Certification will be maintained at the Companys offices and will be made
available for inspection upon request.



---

---
Opinion i ssued November 8 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01
- 12
- 0 0973
- CR

____________ BRANDON MARQUICE WILSON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 179 t h District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . 1252255

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Brandon Marquice Wilson , pleaded guilty to the felony offense of burglary of a habitation and committing or attempting to commit a felony

. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 30.02(a)(3) (West 2011). The trial court found appellant guilty, and, i n accordance with the terms of a ppellant ’s plea agreement with the2

State, sentenced appellant to 20 years’ confinement. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial court’ s permission to appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be
dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been m ade part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2 (d). Here, the trial court’ s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id

. T he trial court ’s certification states t hat this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant did not appeal any pre

- trial matters, and the trial court did not give permission for appellant to appeal . In his notice of appeal, appellant indicates that he wishes to challenge the voluntariness of his plea. When , as here, a de fendant waives his right of appeal as part of an agreement on sentencing and the agreement is followed by the trial court, his waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and he may not appeal any matters unless the trial court first grants p ermission. Ex parte Delaney , 207 S.W.3d 794, 798

– 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cooper v. State , 45 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The record supports the trial court’ s certification. See
Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).3

Be cause appellant has no right of appeal , we must dismiss this appeal

. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardl ess of the basis for the appeal.”)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
P ER CURI A M Panel consis ts of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1296 

To prohibit oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf off the 

coast of New England. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2019 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. KING, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. REED, Mrs. SHAHEEN, 

and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental 

Shelf off the coast of New England. 

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 ‘‘New England Coastal 

5 Protection Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1296 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE 

2 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE COAST 

3 OF NEW ENGLAND. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any 

10 other law, the Secretary may not issue a lease for the ex11 ploration for, or development or production of, oil or nat12 ural gas in any area of the outer Continental Shelf off 

13 the coast of the State of Maine, New Hampshire, Massa14 chusetts, Rhode Island, or Connecticut.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
* The Honorable R. Leon Jordan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0551n.06

Filed: August 2, 2006 No. 05-6123 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NORMAN WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT; LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Officers in the Employ of Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government; TRAVIS HATCHELL, Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

BEFORE: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; JORDAN, District Judge. * LEON JORDAN, District Judge. Norman Wright appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendant s. After reviewing th e record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion. The district court committed no reversible error. Its judgmentWright v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government , No. 05-6123

- 2 - is therefore AFFIRMED for the reasons stated in its summary judgment memorandum opinion.
MICHAEL NOBILE

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul 3. Fishman United States Attorney for

the District of New Jersey (Jonathan W. Romankow, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), anddefendant MICHAEL NOBILE (Scott E. Leemon, Esq., appearing), for an order granting acontinuance ofthe proceedings in the above-captioned matter; and the defendant being aware that

he has the right under 18 U.SC. § 3161(b) to have the matter brought to trial within seventy (70)

days ofthe date ofhis appearance before a judicial officer ofthis court pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161; and the defendant through his attorney having walved such rIghts and cnsentcd to the

continuance; nd for good and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OP THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the

following reasons:

1. A trial date of October 12, 2010 ha., been set in this matter, however, plea

negotiations are currently in progress, and both the United States and the defendant desire

additional time to finalize a plea aweement, whiàh would render trial of this matter

unnecessary;

2. Defendant has consented to the aforementioned continuance;3. Pursuant to Title 18 ofthe United States Code,

Section 3161(h)(8), the ends ofjustice served by granting the continuance outwcightbe best

interests ofthe public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period from August 30, 2010, through

1.1 ‘1 f \:ifflU*2.fi j 2Ojj) shall be excludable in computing time underthe Speedy Trial Actof

1974, pursuant to Title IS, United States Code, Section 3161(hXS),

/

I •-,

HON. WILLIAM H. WALLS

United States Disiiict Judge

Form and entry

consented to:

— —

F /

/

JONAT’I!AN TQMANKOW

Assistant U . orney

SCO E. LEEMON, Esq.

Counsel for Defendant Michael Nobile
#### In the Matter of Stephanie H. Goodman et al., Appellants, v Estate of Anna Druck, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 918]

In a proceeding pursuant to SCEA 1809 to determine the validity of a claim against the respondent, the petitioners appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Tomei, A.S.), dated March 18, 2005, as, upon a decision of the same court (Feinberg, S.) dated February 17, 2005, granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition to the extent that it sought reimbursement of certain moneys.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

After the respondent made out its prima facie case for summary judgment dismissing the petitioners’ claim pursuant to SCEA article 18, the petitioners failed to come forward with evidentiary proof demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the respondent was properly awarded summary judgment dismissing the petition to the extent that it sought reimbursement of certain moneys *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]; *Matter of Casessa,*298 AD2d 518, 519 [2002]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Luciano, J.E, Rivera, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JOSE ANTONIO RIVERA-QUINONES, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 169 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc 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 Heratsi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Anna Kazanchyan, M.D., 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/ Anna Kazanchyan, M.D
                        ------------------------
                        Anna Kazanchyan, M.D.
                        Principal Executive Officer
                        Principal Financial Officer
                        November 10, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

---------------------------------------------------------------X

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Crim. No.: 11cr165 (KSH)

: ORDER AMENDING

JUDGMENT IN A

-against- : CRIMINAL CASE AS TO 

SURRENDER DATE 

ONLY

:

PASQUALE ZINNA,

a/k/a “PATTY ZINNA,” and “ :

PATRICK ZINNA,” et. al.

:

---------------------------------------------------------------X

WHEREAS the defendant, Pasquale Zinna, has made application for an 

earlier surrender date, the U.S. Attorney’s office has no objection to this application, and 

good cause appears to grant the application;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment signed June 6, 2012 and 

entered June 8, 2012 as Doc #101 is hereby amended and the defendant shall surrender 

for service of sentence at the institution previously designated by the Bureau of Prisons, 

Fort Dix SCP, Fort Dix, New Jersey before 12 noon on July 15, 2012. 

SO ORDERED:

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden

______________________________

KATHARINE S. HAYDEN, U.S.D.J.

Dated: June 29, 2012

Case 2:11-cr-00165-KSH Document 103 Filed 07/02/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 402