alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_6.htm




Exhibit 10.6







At the 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders held on May 5, 2011, the Company’s shareholders approved the MGIC Investment Corporation 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “2011 Plan”), including a structure and list of performance goals (the “listed goals”) for an annual bonus plan for the Company’s named executive officers (these officers are the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and the next three highest paid executive officers) which conditions bonuses on satisfaction of one or more of the performance goals on that list (a bonus plan of this type is “a 162(m) Bonus Plan”). A copy of the 2011 Plan is included as Appendix B to our Proxy Statement filed on March 31, 2011.







The performance goal for our 162(m) Bonus Plan adopted by the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) for 2013 requires the sum of the loss ratio and the expense ratio for MGIC’s primary new insurance written for that year to be less than 50%. The loss ratio is incurred losses in 2013 for the Company’s 2013 primary new insurance written, divided by premiums earned in 2013 on that business, and the expense ratio is the expenses of the Company’s insurance operations in 2013 divided by the Company’s net premiums written in 2013. If this goal is met, then the Committee will have discretion to make a subjective determination of bonuses, within the bonus maximums provided in the 2011 Plan, based on an assessment of shareholder value, return on investment, primary business drivers (loss ratio, expense ratio and market share), loss mitigation, management organization, capital position, effective dealings with federal and state regulatory agencies and the profitability of our mix of new business. With the exception of targeted levels for the loss ratio, expense ratio and market share, no specific targets were established for any of these bonus criteria for 2013.
# National Day of Renewal And Reconciliation, 2009

As I take the sacred oath of the highest office in the land, I am humbled by the responsibility placed upon my shoulders, renewed by the courage and decency of the American people, and fortified by my faith in an awesome God.

We are in the midst of a season of trial.  Our Nation is being tested, and our people know great uncertainty.  Yet the story of America is one of renewal in the face of adversity, reconciliation in a time of discord, and we know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven.

On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright—it is a glorious burden.  Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more.

So in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, let us remember that:  “The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E9-1677

Billing code 3195-W9-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo GARCIA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40363

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eduardo Garcia-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. Cali*fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Garcia-Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

*

 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.
PROR 12C

(7/93)

United States District Court

for

District of New Jersey

Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision

Name of Offender: Reynaldo Martinez Docket Number: 1 1-O019O001

PACTS Number: 56521

Name of Judicial Officer: Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise

Senior United States District Judge

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: Honorable Andre M. Davis

United States District Judge. D/MD

Date of Original Sentence: April 25, 2003

Original Offense: Possession with Intent to Distribute Narcotics

Original Sentence: 100 months imprisonment; 4 years supervised release; $100 Special Assessment.

Type of Supervision: supervised release Date Supervision Commenced: 10/01/10

Assistant U.S. Attorney: To be assigned

Defense Attorney: To be assigned

PETITIONING THE COURT

[ j To issue a warrant

[X] To issue a summons

The probation officer believes that the offender has violated the following condition(s) of supervision:

Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance

The offender has violated the standard supervision condition which states ‘You

shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime.’

On October 22, 2012, the offender was arrested by the Jersey City Police

Department and charged with possession of CDS; manufacture/distribute CDS;

and. CDS on school property.

The offender has violated the standard supervision condition which states You

shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall

not associate with any person convicted ofa felony unless granted permission

to do so by the probation officer.’

On October 22. 2012. the offender was arrested with Raymond Rodriguez, a

convicted felon.

Case 2:11-cr-00190-DRD Document 4 Filed 01/22/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 16
PROB 12C - Page 2

Reynaldo Martinez

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

GiseHa M.

Bassohno

2013,01.15

11:34:36 -0500

By: Gisella M. Bassolino Carolee Ann Az2arello U S ProbataotQf 20130116132303

Date: 1/15/13

THE COURT ORDERS:

I The Issuance of a Warrant

[J The Issuance of a Summons. Date of Hearing: iJ iw

[ I No Action

[ I Other 1

/ 1

f

Signature ofJudicial Officer

J

i--yi

/ Date

Case 2:11-cr-00190-DRD Document 4 Filed 01/22/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 17
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 Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. James Dearlove, Chief Executive Officer of PVG GP, LLC, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 2, 2007 |  |                        
|                     | 
|                     |  | /s/ A. James Dearlove  
|                     |  | A. James Dearlove      
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Snowdon Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Baker, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Dated this 22nd day of March 2010.




“R.M. Baker”__________________________________


Robert M. Baker


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Order entered May 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-01501-CR

No. 05-11-01502-CR

KEVEN C. CALDWELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-25227-W & F09-72926-W

ORDER

Before the Court is Keven C. Caldwell’s April 10, 2013 Motion to Request Trial 

Transcripts in Order to File Pro Se Appeal Brief and/or Petition for Discretionary Review. 

Caldwell filed his petition for discretionary review on April 29, 2013. Accordingly, we DENY

this motion as moot.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stokes, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-5128.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . S TOKES . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stokes , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-5128.] (No. 2014-1905

— Submitted July 26, 2016

— Decided July 28, 2016.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further c onsideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by responde nt, Angela Rochelle Stokes, Attorney Registration No. 0025650, last known address in Bratenahl, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of December 18, 2014, wherein the court, pursuant to former G ov.Bar R. V(5a)(B), imposed an interim remedial suspension, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisi ons of Gov.Bar R. V(24). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this cour t that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent’s reinstatement is conditioned upon her con tinued compliance with her agreement to never run for, seek, accept appointment to, or hold any judicial position in any Ohio state court, excluding federal court positions. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Stokes , 143 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2014-Ohio-5536, 35 N.E.3d 524.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

________________________
#### The Swiftsure.1 Chapman *v.*The Swiftsure.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

June *2,*1886.)

Salvage—Specific Sum Agreed upon—Dispute as to Amount—Unreasonable Amount—Award.

As the tug W. was cruising in the neighborhood of Sandy Hook she learned that the steamer S. was lying disabled some 15 miles down the Jersey coast, and proceeded to her assistance. The S., with a valuable cargo on board, was lying some eight miles from the beach, unable to proceed, an accident having-happened to her machinery. The weather was intensely cold, both vessels were covered with ice, and a thick fog prevailed. A bargain was made between the masters of the tug and the steam-ship to tow the latter to New York. The libel alleged that the agreed compensation was $4,000; the answer alleged that it was $400. The value of the tug was claimed to be $30,000; the value of the S. $75,000 or $100,000, her cargo $80,000, and her freight about $11,000 or $13,000. *Held,*on the evidence, that the sum agreed on was $4,000; and, as this was not such an unreasonable price for the salvage service as to require the court to set aside a contract deliberately made to pay that sum, the libelants should recover $4,000, but without costs.

In Admiralty.

*Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich,*for libelant.

*Butler, Stillman & Hubbard,*for claimant.

1

 Reported by R. D. & Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

The clear weight of evidence is to the effect that the master of the Swiftsure agreed with the master of the libelant’s tug that a salvage compensation of $4,000 should be paid for the services of the tug in relieving the steamer. The only question open to discussion is whether the price so agreed on was unreasonable. Upon the evidence, and taking into consideration the value of the steamer and her condition, I am not prepared to say that $4,000 is a sum so out of proportion to the benefit received as to require the court to set aside a contract deliberately made to pay that sum. The libelants may therefore have a decree for $4,000.

I give no costs, because I consider the sum awarded a very liberal salvage compensation for the work and labor that the libelant’s tug was called on to perform. A distribution of the salvage will be made on application of the parties interested.
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 
 Amendment of 
 Stericycle, Inc. Amended and Restated Incentive
Compensation Plan 
 Stericycle, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, 

Stericycle, Inc. 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan, 
 Stericycle, Inc. 2005 Incentive Stock Plan and 
 Stericycle, Inc. 2008
Incentive Stock Plan 
 1. Amendment of 1995 and 1997 Plans 

The definition of “Termination Date” in each of (i) the Stericycle, Inc. (1995) Amended and Restated Incentive
Compensation Plan, as amended to date, and (ii) the Stericycle, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, as amended to date, is amended to read as follows: 
 Termination Date means the date of termination of service to the Company or a Subsidiary by an Employee or an Officer-Employee. The following shall not be considered a termination of service:
(i) a transfer of employment from the Company to a Subsidiary or from a Subsidiary to the Company or to another Subsidiary; or (ii) becoming a Consultant or Director and ceasing to serve as an Employee or Officer-Employee. 

2. Amendment of 2000, 2005 and 2008 Plans 
 The definition of “Termination Date” in each of (i) the Stericycle, Inc. 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan, as amended to date, (ii) the Stericycle, Inc. 2005 Incentive Stock Plan,
as amended to date, and (iii) the Stericycle, Inc. 2008 Incentive Stock Plan, as amended to date, is amended to read as follows: 
 Termination Date means the date of termination of service to the Company or a Subsidiary by an Employee. The following shall not be considered a termination of service: (i) a transfer of
employment from the Company to a Subsidiary or from a Subsidiary to the Company or to another Subsidiary; or (ii) becoming a Consultant or Director and ceasing to serve as an Employee. 

3. Effective Date 
 This Amendment shall be effective as of June 8, 2011.
Exhibit
32.1





EXTERRAN
PARTNERS, L.P.


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 on Form 10-Q of Exterran Partners, L.P.
(the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Stephen A.
Snider, as Chief Executive Officer of Exterran GP LLC, the general partner of
the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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
      Partnership.





/s/ Stephen A.
Snider


Stephen
A. Snider


Chief
Executive Officer, Exterran GP LLC


As General Partner of Exterran General Partner, L.P.


As General Partner of Exterran Partners,
L.P.





August 6,
2008





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 required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the
Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.




32
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7711
GREGORY R. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1710-H) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory R. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gwynn X. Kinsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Corcoran , No. CA-96-1710-H (D. Md. Sept. 19, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
v. : Crim. No. 11-447 (WHW)

RUSSELL FLUKER,

Defendant.

Walls, Senior District Judge

This matter having been opened to the Court by lacullo Martino, LLC, by and through

Anthony J. lacullo, Esq. attorneys for the defendant, Russell Fluker, and on notice to the United

States Attorney’s Office by and through Sharon Ashe, Assistant United States Attorney, and the

parties having consented to same, and good cause having been shown:

It is, on this 29th day of November, 2011:

ORDERED that the defendant, Russell Fluker, be transferred to the UMDNJ Medical

Center, or any other appropriate medical facility, for the purpose of assessing his prostate cancer;

and it is further

ORDERED that the defendant, Russell Fluker, shall immediately receive medical

consultation and appropriate medical treatment of his condition at the UMDNJ Medical Center,

or any other appropriate medical facility, after such assessment is completed.

Judge
EX-10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 
 Exhibit A 
 Performance Unit Award Notice 

 

					
	A. Participant:	 	  
	 	
			
	B. Grant Date:	 	February 22, 2012	 	
			
	C. Performance Period:	 	1/1/2012 through 12/31/2014	 	
			
	D. Aggregate Target Dollar Award:	 	  
	 	
			
	E. Initial Value Per Performance Unit:	 	  
	 	
			
	F. Aggregate Target Performance Units:	 	  
	 	

 G. Performance Measures: 
  

	 	1.	Diluted Earnings per Share: “Diluted EPS” means earnings per common share on a fully diluted basis, determined in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and as derived from L-3’s audited consolidated financial statements prepared in the ordinary course of business. Diluted EPS shall be adjusted as contemplated by the terms of the Performance Unit Agreement to
exclude certain items specified therein, and for 2012, shall be calculated based on continuing operations. 


Portion of Aggregate Target Dollar Award for this Performance Measure: 100% 

Target Units for this Performance Measure:
                     

Performance Scale: 
  

							
	 Performance Levels
	  	Cumulative
Diluted
EPS Required	  	Unit
Multiplier	 
	 Maximum
	  	3 $24.81	  	 	200	% 
		  	$24.00	  	 	150	% 
	 Target
	  	$23.19	  	 	100	% 
		  	$22.38	  	 	75	% 
	 Threshold
	  	$21.57	  	 	50	% 
	 Below Threshold
	  	< $21.57	  	 	0	% 








 In the event that the level of actual performance exceeds the Threshold and falls between
two of the stated performance levels listed above, the Unit Multiplier will be calculated on a straight-line basis between the two stated Unit Multipliers for those performance levels. 

Payment Method: Shares of L-3 stock. Subject to the terms of the Performance Unit Agreement, the number of shares will be determined by
multiplying (1) the Target Units for this Performance Measure, by (2) the applicable Unit Multiplier.
```
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 September 30, 2008 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:  November 18, 2008                                                              By:
```

```
                                                                                                                -----------------------------------
```

```
                                                                                                                TAMER MUFTIZADE
```

```
                                                                                                                Chief Financial Officer
```