alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 
 PVR GP, LLC 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet for 2013 

Directors who are employees of PVR GP, LLC or its affiliates receive no additional compensation for service on the general partner’s board of
directors or any committees of the board. The table below summarizes the 2013 compensation program for the non-employee directors of PVR GP, LLC, effective January 1, 2013. 

2013 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary 
  

							
	 Component
	  	Amount
($)	  	Medium of Payment (1)	  	Timing of Payment (2)
				
	 Non-Employee Director Annual Retainer - $150,000 per year comprised of
	  	75,000 per year	  	Deferred Common Units/
 Common
Units
	  	$18,750 credited
quarterly
		  	75,000 per year	  	Cash	  	$18,750 paid
quarterly
	 Chairman of the Board Annual Retainer
	  	125,000 per year	  	Cash	  	$31,250 paid
quarterly
	 Audit Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	  	15,000 per year	  	Cash	  	$3,750 paid

quarterly

	 Compensation and Benefits Chair Annual Retainer
	  	15,000 per year	  	Cash	  	$3,750 paid

quarterly

	 Nominating and Governance Chair Annual Retainer
	  	6,000 per year	  	Cash	  	$1,500 paid

quarterly

	 Board Meeting Fee
	  	2,000 per
meeting	  	Cash	  	Paid quarterly

  

	(1)	Beginning on January 1 of the year following the year a director meets his/her Unit Ownership Guidelines requirement, a director will receive the equity portion of
his/her annual retainer in common units, rather than deferred common units, unless he/she elects to continue to receive deferred common units. The equity portion of the annual retainer paid in the form of deferred common units will be credited to
the director’s Deferred Compensation Account. In addition, directors may elect to receive any cash payments in common units or deferred common units, and may elect to defer the receipt of cash or common units they receive under the PVR GP, LLC
Amended and Restated Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan. 


	(2)	The fair market value of each quarterly payment of common units or crediting of deferred common units is based upon the NYSE closing price of our common units on the
dates that such awards are granted.
**Exhibit 23** **CONSENT OF    INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective    Amendment No. 4 to the Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 2-72410)    pertaining to the UST Inc. Employees’ Savings Plan, the    Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-36844)    pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan, Post-Effective    Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-60698)    pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan, the Registration    Statement    (Form S-8No. 33-59229)    pertaining to the Nonemployee Directors’ Stock Option Plan,    the Registration Statement    (Form S-4No. 333-101036)    pertaining to the registration of senior notes due July 15,    2012, and the Registration Statement    (Form S-4No. 333-85285)    pertaining to the registration of senior notes due June 1,    2009, of our reports dated February 21, 2008 with respect    to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of UST    Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial    reporting of UST Inc. included in the Annual Report    (Form 10-K)    for the year ended December 31, 2007. /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP     Stamford, Connecticut    February 21, 2008       118
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 March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date 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 operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated: May 15, | 2007 | By: /s/ Tamer Muftizade |
|----------------|------|-------------------------|

|   | ----------------------------------- |
|--------|-------------------------------------|

|   | TAMER MUFTIZADE |
|--------|-----------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
Case 3:11-cv-02000-GEB Document 5 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 26
Case 3:11-cv-02000-GEB Document 5 Filed 06/13/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 27
Case 3:11-cv-02000-GEB Document 5 Filed 06/13/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 28
Case 3:11-cv-02000-GEB Document 5 Filed 06/13/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 29
Case 3:11-cv-02000-GEB Document 5 Filed 06/13/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 30
Case 3:11-cv-02000-GEB Document 5 Filed 06/13/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 31
Case 3:11-cv-02000-GEB Document 5 Filed 06/13/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 32
#### Debra Tagliaferro et al., Appellants, v Antoinette Durgin, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 463]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), dated July 22, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

*908Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]; *Delgado v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Greenburgh & Mt. Pleasant,*65 AD2d 547 [1978], *affd*48 NY2d 643 [1979]). Here, the jury’s determination that the defendant homeowner was not negligent could be reached by a fair interpretation of the evidence. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the three months ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary E. Sullivan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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, as amended; 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 14, 2007 |  | SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION
|                        |  |                            
|                        |  | By                          |  | /s/ Mary E. Sullivan                                                
|                        |  |                             |  | Mary E. SullivanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

|                      |                              |
|----------------------|------------------------------|
|                 | MEDPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC. |
|                 |                         |
| Dated: June 24, 2009 | By:/s/ Marc T. Ray           |
|                 | Marc T. Ray                  |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer      |

----
May 19, 2021

Via email only

The Honorable Brian Martinotti

United States District Court of New Jersey

Clarkson S. Fisher Bldg & U.S. Courthouse

402 East State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

RE: Kimberlee Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al.

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01754 (JLL) (JAD)

Dear Judge Martinotti: 

Counsel have met and conferred regarding the schedule for completing Claims 

Administration leading up to the Fairness Hearing which has been rescheduled for September 23, 

2021. We have agreed to extend the date for the parties to exercise their walk-away rights by one 

week from the Claims Determination Deadline. Accordingly, the schedule, if approved by Your 

Honor, is as follows: 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 635 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 49327
Honorable Brian Martinotti

May 19, 2021

Page 2

Respectfully,

/s/ Christopher M. Placitella

CHRISTOPHER M. PLACITELLA

CMP/bd

cc: Via email only

Eugene F. Assaf, Esquire

Nina M. Gussack, Esquire

Hon. Marina Corodemus, Ret’d. 

Jennifer Fiore, Judicial Clerk

It is further ordered the motion for attorney fees [cm/ecf #628] will be administratively terminated 

and addressed at the fairness hearing. If supplemental briefing is required for the attorney fees 

motion, parties shall file same no later than 7 days prior to the proof hearing. 

SO ORDERED:

_______________________________________

BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI, USDJ

Dated: May 21, 2021

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 635 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 49328
Order entered July 2 3 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01677
- CR MELVIN CELESTINE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08
- 61495
- I



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s July 18, 2013 motion for extension of time to file a reply brief.
We ORDER appellant to file his reply brief within THIRTY DAYS from the date of this
order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.15
 
 
    1.
    
    Change of Control Severance Payments.




---



##### 



1.
    
    If the Employee terminates his employment during the period beginning on the
first anniversary of a Change of Control and ending on or before ninety days following
the first anniversary of the Change of Control by giving the Company not less than
thirty (30) days notice of the Employees intention to terminate employment with the
Company.2.
    
    If the Employment of the Employee is terminated by the Company other than for a
Termination for Cause during the three-year period after a Change of Control. A
Termination for Cause shall be defined as a termination by the Company at any time,
without notice, for Employees (i) willful misconduct in the performance of his or her
duties (other than for disability); (ii) dishonesty or breach of trust by the Employee
which is demonstrably injurious to the Company or its subsidiaries; or (iii) conviction
or plea of nolo contendereto a felony.3.
    
    If the Employee terminates his employment for Good Reason during the three-year
period after a Change of Control. Good Reason shall mean, without the Employees
express written consent, the occurrence of any one or more of the following: (i) a
material diminution of the Employees authorities, duties, responsibilities, and status
(including offices, titles, and reporting requirements) as an employee of the Company
from those in effect as of one hundred eighty days prior to the Change of Control; (ii)
the Companys requiring the Employee to be based at a location in excess of thirty-five
miles from the location of the Employees principal job location or office immediately
prior to the Change of Control; (iii) a reduction in the Employees base salary or any
material reduction by the Company of the Employees other compensation or benefits from
that in effect immediately before the Change of Control occurred; (iv) the failure of
the Company to obtain a satisfactory agreement from any successor to the Company to
assume and agree to perform the Companys obligations under this Agreement, as
contemplated in paragraph 2, below; and (v) any purported termination by the Company of
the Employees employment that is not effected pursuant to a notice of termination in
writing which shall indicate the specific termination provision in this Agreement
relied upon, and shall set forth in reasonable detail the facts and circumstances
claimed to provide a basis for termination of the Employees employment under the
provision so indicated, and for purposes of this Agreement, no such purported
termination shall be effective.
  Assignment




---



##### 



Attest:
    
    
    
    CALGON CARBON CORPORATION/s/ Michael J. Mocniak
    
    
    
    By
    
    /s/ John S. Stanik[Corporate Seal]
    
    
    
    
    
    John S. Stanik, President & Chief Executive OfficerWitness:/s/ Reinier Keijzer
    
    
    
    
    
    /s/ C.H.S. MajoorReinier Keijzer
    
    
    
    
    
    C. H. S. Majoor
Case 2:11-cr-00113-MCA Document 33 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 56
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

Inconnection with the report of Primoris Services Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter J. Moerbeek,Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.                                      The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                      The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Inwitness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate asof the date set forth opposite his signature below.

 
| Date: November 12,  2009 | /s/ PETER J. MOERBEEK                                              |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Peter J. Moerbeek                                                  |
|                          | *Executive  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Director* |

 

----
**EXHIBIT NO. 21**

**SUBSIDIARIESOF NUI CORPORATION**

NUI Utilities, Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation), NUICapital Corp. (a Florida Corporation), Virginia Gas Company (a DelawareCorporation), NUI Saltville Storage, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation), and NUIStorage, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) are wholly-owned subsidiaries of NUICorporation.

NUI Energy, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation), NUI EnergyBrokers, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation), Utility Business Services, Inc. (a NewJersey Corporation), OAS Group, Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation), NUI EnergySolutions Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation), NUI Sales Management, Inc. (aDelaware Corporation), NUI Services, Inc. (a New Jersey Corporation), and NUIInternational, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) are wholly-owned subsidiaries ofNUI Capital Corp.

Virginia Gas Pipeline Company, Virginia Gas StorageCompany and Virginia Gas Distribution Company (all Virginia Corporations) arewholly-owned subsidiaries of Virginia Gas Company.

TIC Enterprises, LLC (a Delaware Limited LiabilityCompany) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NUI Sales Management, Inc.

NUI/Caritrade International, L.L.C. (a Delaware LimitedLiability Company) is a 90 percent owned subsidiary of NUI International, Inc.

Saltville Gas Storage Company, LLC (a Virginia LimitedLiability Company) is a 50 percent owned subsidiary of NUI Saltville Storage,Inc.

NUI Richton Storage, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) is a100 percent owned subsidiary of NUI Storage, Inc.

Richton Gas Storage Company, LLC (Delaware LimitedLiability Company) is a 100 percent owned subsidiary of NUI Richton Storage,Inc.

NUI Ukraine (a Delaware Corporation) is a 100 percentowned subsidiary of NUI International, Inc. and NUI Hungary, Inc. (a DelawareCorporation) is a 90 percent owned subsidiary of NUI International, Inc. and a10 percent owned subsidiary of NUI Energy Brokers.

HungarianPortfolio Management and Trading, LLC (a Hungarian Limited Liability Company)is a 100 percent owned subsidiary of NUI Hungary, Inc.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Steven Levin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Twistee Treat Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the year ended November
30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such 10KSB
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Twistee Treat Corporation.


                                   By: /s/ Steven Levin
                                       ----------------
                                   Name: Steven Levin
                                   Title: Principal Executive Officer



              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


I, James Tilton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Twistee Treat Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the year ended November
30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such 10KSB
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Twistee Treat Corporation.


                                   By: /s/ James Tilton
                                       ----------------
                                   Name: James Tilton
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.45

 

Description of NetSpend Holdings, Inc. 2012 Non-affiliated Independent Director Compensation Program

 

Compensation of Directors

 

In 2012, members of our Board of Directors who are not our employees and are not affiliated with any Oak Investment Partners-affiliated entity (collectively, “Oak”) or any JLL Partners-affiliated entity (collectively, “JLL”) received an annual cash retainer of $61,800 and a restricted stock grant of 13,674 shares. Our lead director received a supplemental $15,450 retainer. Additionally, the chairman of the Audit Committee received an annual retainer of $15,450, the chairman of the Compensation Committee received an annual retainer of $10,300 and the chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an annual retainer of $5,150. All cash retainers are paid quarterly on a pro-rata basis. Directors may elect to receive the value of any cash compensation payable in accordance with the foregoing policy in equity securities. Equity grants are generally made the first meeting of our Board of Directors and are made in the form of shares of restricted stock with a one-year vesting period. Our directors are also reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses related to their service on our Board of Directors.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL 11-268(MLC)

vs. : ORDER APPOINTING FEDERAL

PUBLIC DEFENDER

SHAHEED WILLIAMS :

The financial inability of the defendant to retain counsel

having been established by the court, and the defendant not

having waived the appointment of counsel, and for good cause

shown; it is on this 13th day of May, 2011,

ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender Organization

for the District of New Jersey is hereby appointed to represent

said defendant in this cause until further order of this court.

S/Mary L. Cooper

MARY L. COOPER,

United States District Judge

cc: Federal Public Defender

Case 3:11-cr-00268-MLC Document 5 Filed 05/13/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 9
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00334

- CR

Rodney Nathaniel Boone

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 2

o f Tarrant County (1304611D )

October 10, 2013

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM