alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

K-BEECH, INC. :

Plaintiff : Civil Action No. 11-3614(FSH)

v. :

JOHN DOES 1-26, : ORDER 

 

Defendants :

This matter having come before the Court by way of defendant’s motion regarding a

subpoena served upon an internet service provider to obtain identification information and

seeking to sever the defendants;

and it appearing that the motion seeks discovery-based relief;

and Local Civil Rule 37.1(a)(1) requiring that “Counsel shall confer to resolve any

discovery dispute. Any such dispute not resolved shall be presented by telephone conference call

or letter to the Magistrate Judge. This presentation shall precede any formal motion.” L. Civ. R.

37.1(a)(1); 

and it appearing that the defendant having filed a discovery motion without comporting

with Local Civil Rule 37.1(a)(1) as it was not preceded by a telephone conference or a letter; 

and for the reasons set forth herein;

IT IS ON THIS 22nd day of August, 2011

ORDERED that the request for relief embodied in the defendant’s motion [Docket Entry

NO. 10] is denied without prejudice; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to all discovery and case management

disputes, counsel shall confer in a good faith attempt to informally resolve any discovery disputes

Case 2:11-cv-03614-FSH -PS Document 11 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 121
before seeking the Court’s intervention. Should such informal effort fail to resolve the dispute,

the matter shall be brought to the Court's attention via joint letter that sets forth: (a) the request,

(b) the response; (c) efforts to resolve the dispute; and (d) the parties’ positions concerning the

requested relief. No further submissions regarding the dispute may be submitted without leave of

Court. If necessary, the Court will thereafter schedule a telephone conference to resolve the

dispute.

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-03614-FSH -PS Document 11 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 122
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

ROBERT BASS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE HONICKMAN GROUP, d/b/a

Beverage Distribution Center,

Inc., also d/b/a Pepsi-Cola

and National Brand Beverages,

LTD, et al.,

 Defendants.

 

VAN LUDWICK, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE HONICKMAN GROUP, d/b/a

Beverage Distribution Center,

Inc., also d/b/a Pepsi-Cola

and National Brand Beverages,

LTD, et al.,

 Defendants.

 

SCOTT WALTER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE HONICKMAN GROUP, d/b/a

Beverage Distribution Center,

Inc., also d/b/a Pepsi-Cola

and National Brand Beverages,

LTD, et al.,

 Defendants.

Civil No. 11-3072 (RMB/AMD)

Civil No. 11-3100 (NLH/AMD)

Civil No. 11-3101 (JHR/AMD)

ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION FOR CONSOLIDATION

FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES ONLY

Case 1:11-cv-03100-NLH-AMD Document 22 Filed 08/24/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 130
THIS MATTER having come before the Court during an

initial scheduling conference on August 24, 2011, and upon an

informal joint application by the parties to consolidate the above

matters for discovery purposes, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 42(a), and it appearing that the above-captioned matters

involve common or similar allegations, and that the matters in

Civil Nos. 11-3072, 11-3100, and 11-3101 should be consolidated for

disposition in one proceeding for discovery purposes only.

IT IS this 24th day of August 2011, hereby

ORDERED that the matters in Civil Nos. 11-3072, 11-3100

and 11-3101 shall be, and hereby are, CONSOLIDATED for discovery

purposes only.

s/ Ann Marie Donio 

ANN MARIE DONIO

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Hon. Renée Marie Bumb

 Hon. Noel L. Hillman

 Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez

2

Case 1:11-cv-03100-NLH-AMD Document 22 Filed 08/24/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 131
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

--------------------------------------------------------------- x

CHW GROUP, INC. a/k/a Choice Home Warranty 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF NEW JERSEY, 

INC. and MELISSA COMPANICK 

 Defendants. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

--------------------------------------------------------------- x

 

RULE 7.1 STATEMENT 

 

RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff hereby certifies that 

CHW Group, Inc. has no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more 

of CHW Group, Inc.. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 June 2, 2011 

 __/s/ Aaron J. Solomon_________

 Aaron J. Solomon, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 101 Avenue of the Americas, 15thFloor 

 New York, NY 10013 

 Tel: 212.226.2376
Case 3:11-cv-02565-AET -DEA Document 59 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 573
Case 3:11-cv-02565-AET -DEA Document 59 Filed 03/30/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 574
Case 3:11-cv-02565-AET -DEA Document 59 Filed 03/30/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 575
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1740

In re: ELIZABETH H. COOMES , Debtor

.

--------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH H. COOMES, a/k/a Elizabeth Haring Coomes, d/b/a Old Town Insurance & Financial , Debtor

- Appellant,

v. THOMAS P. GORMAN, Chapter 13 Trustee , Trustee

- Appellee

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 01322

- TSE

- MSN )

Submitted : October 28, 2019 Decided: December 6, 2019

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Elizabeth Haring Coomes , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Elizabeth Haring Coomes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her second motion to reconsider a prior order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because th e notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 28, 2019 . The notice of appeal was filed on July 3, 2019. Because Coomes failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. In light of this disposition, we deny as moot the Appellee’s motion to dismiss or consolidate the appeal. We deny all of Coomes’ pending motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

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 RADVISION Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the period ending December 31, 2008 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 Raviv
Chief Executive Officer

March 25, 2009

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



---

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thian Hoo Tan, 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 Komag, Incorporated on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
29, 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 Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Komag, Incorporated.

                                        By:   /S/ Thian Hoo Tan
                                           -------------------------------
                                        Name: Thian Hoo Tan
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer

I, Kathleen A. Bayless, 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 Komag, Incorporated on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
29, 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 Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Komag, Incorporated.

                                        By:    /S/ Kathleen A. Bayless
                                           -------------------------------
                                        Name: Kathleen A. Bayless
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 114
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 115
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 116
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 117
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 118
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 119
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 120
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 121
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 122
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-3 Filed 06/03/11 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 123
Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 40 Filed 07/06/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 104
Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 40 Filed 07/06/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 105
Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 40 Filed 07/06/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 106
Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 40 Filed 07/06/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 107
Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 40 Filed 07/06/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 108
Case 2:11-cr-00352-MCA Document 40 Filed 07/06/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 109
ex10_21.htm









EXHIBIT 10.21







Description of Arrangement for Directors Fees







Except as set forth below, the following sets forth the amount of fees payable to outside directors for their services as Directors in fiscal year 2013:








	  	 	 	 	 	
Restricted

	 
	
Fees

	 	
Cash

	 	 	
Stock Units

	 
	
Annual Retainer Fee

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Company:

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Chair

	 	$	50,000	 	 	$	54,000	 
	
Director

	 	$	12,500	 	 	$	13,000	 
	
NBT Bank N.A.:

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Chair

	 	 	-	 	 	$	11,000	 
	
Director

	 	$	12,500	 	 	$	8,000	 
	
Committee Chair:

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Audit and Risk Management

	 	$	10,000	 	 	 	-	 
	
All Other Committees

	 	$	5,000	 	 	 	-	 
	
Affiliate Board Member

	 	$	1,000	 	 	 	-	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Fee per Board Meeting

	 	$	1,000	 	 	 	-	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
Fee per Committee Meeting

	 	$	800	 	 	 	-
(NOT FOR PUBLICATION) (Doc. No. 1, 5) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE

____________________________________ 

In re: : 

 : 

MEDFORD CROSSINGS NORTH LLC, : 

et al., : 

 : 

 Debtors. : 

____________________________________: 

 : 

MEDFORD VILLAGE EAST : 

ASSOCIATES, LLC and : 

LAUREL PINES, LLC, : Civil No. 11-2583 (RBK) 

 : 

 Appellants, : ORDER

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

MEDFORD CROSSINGS NORTH LLC, : 

et al., : 

 : 

 Appellees/Debtors. : 

___________________________________ : 

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the appeal by Medford Village East 

Associates, LLC and Laurel Pines, LLC (“Appellants”) of the Order of the Bankruptcy Court 

approving a Settlement Agreement by Debtors (“Appellants”) in the underlying bankruptcy 

proceedings, and the Court having considered the moving papers, responses thereto, and exhibits, 

and for the reasons expressed in the Opinion issued this date; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, because Appellants lack standing to appeal the 

Bankruptcy Court’s Order, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Date: 2/1/2012 /s/ Robert B. Kugler 

 ROBERT B. KUGLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02583-RBK Document 12 Filed 02/01/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 531
#### Michael HUMPHREY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-55248.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 3, 2012.

Filed Dec. 19, 2012.

Michael Humphrey, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent>-Ap-pellee.

Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner-Appellant Michael Humphrey appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Humphrey argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations on the basis of his limited mental capacity. After the district court entered judgment in this case, we decided *Bills v. Clark,*628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2010), which provides a framework for determining whether a ha-beas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on the basis of a mental impairment. Because the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in *Bills,*we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for reconsideration under the *Bills*framework.

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 165 Filed 04/25/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1231
Case 2:11-cr-00194-DMC Document 12 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 46
Case 2:11-cr-00194-DMC Document 12 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 47
EXHIBIT 10.8

                                     [LOGO]

May 4, 2005

To: JRT Associates

From: Paul S. Lipschutz


      RE: Consulting Agreement

This letter is an addendum to our agreement dated October 10, 2004.

Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc.  hereby  agrees that because of the services
provided by Mr.  Theismann in attaining  the NFL license for CCGI,  we will also
pay 5% (five percent) of sales (as defined by the previous  agreement and on the
terms of the previous  agreement) for Minor League Baseball (upon  completion of
license) sales made by CCGI.

Additionally,  we will issue options for an additional 3 million  shares at .003
(3 mills) good for 3 years from the date of this addendum.

/s/ Paul S. Lipschutz
---------------------
President
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group; Subcommittee A--Cancer Centers.
    Date: August 7, 2009.
    Time: 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Gail J. Bryant, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd, Room 
8107, MSC 8328, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, (301) 402-0801, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 10, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-17049 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
JAMES PENDER, ORDER

RUSSELL FLUKER,

RONALD BASSETT, and

KEITH EUTSEY

This matter having been opened to the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (Sharon Ashe, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing) and defendants James Pender (Thomas Arnbrosio, Esq.,

appearing), Russell Fluker (Anthony J. lacullo, Esq., appearing),

Ronald Bassett (Ronald Rubinstein, Esq., appearing) and Keith

Eutsey (John J. O’Reilly, Esq., appearing) and good cause having

been shown, the Court makes the following findings:

This case is sufficiently complex, due to the nature of the

prosecution, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate

preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial within the time

limits established by Title 18, United States Code, section 3161;

and

The ends of justice served by a continuance of the trial

date in this matter until January 9, 2012 outweigh the interest

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial;
January 9, 2012 shall be excluded for the purposes of computing

time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section

3161 (h) (8) (A) , (h) (8) (B) (ii) and (h) (8) (iv); and it is further

ORDERED that:

Defendants shall file pretrial motions on or before November

15, 2011;

The Government shall respond to such motions on or before

December 15, 2011;

The return date for pretrial motions shall be December 28,

2012; and

Trial shall commence on January 9, 2012 at 10 a.m.

United States District Judge
Thomas Anibrosio, Esq.

Attorney for James Pender

Anthony J, lacullo, Esq.

Attorney for Russell Fluker

Ronald Rubinstein, Esq.

Attorney for Ronald Bassett

John J. O’Reilly, Esq.

Attorney for Keith Eutsey
Thomas Arnbrosio, Esq.

Attorney for James Pender

Anthony J, lacullo, Esq.Attorney for Russell Fluker

Ronald Rubinstein, Esq.

Attorney for Ronald Bassett

John J. O’Reilly, Esq.

Attorney for Keith Eutsey
Thomas Ambrosio, Esq.

Attorney for James Pender

ia1

Anthony J, Iaculio, Esq.

Attorney for iisse11 Fluker

Ronald Rubinstein, Esq.

Attorney for Ronald Bassett

JZ,O!ljy,Es.

tornJy for Keit 7’utsey
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIE WILSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1891

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed November 13, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Polk County; Larry Helms, 

Judge.

Willie Wilson, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Brown 

v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Pleas v. State, 41 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2010); Lykins v. State, 894 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Thomas v. State, 778 

So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Bloodworth v. State, 504 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 

1987).

VILLANTI, LaROSE, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
NEE-12.31.2012 Ex 10.ss






Exhibit 10(ss)


NEXTERA ENERGY, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY
(Effective January 1, 2013)


	
		
	Annual Retainer
    (payable quarterly in common stock or cash)
	$60,000

	 
	 

	Board or Committee meeting fee
	$2,000/meeting

	 
	 

	Audit Committee Chair retainer (annual)
     (payable quarterly)
	$20,000

	 
	 

	Other Committee Chair retainer (annual)
     (payable quarterly)
	$15,000

	 
	 

	Annual grant of restricted stock
     (under 2007 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan)
	That number of shares determined by dividing $130,000 by closing price of NextEra Energy common stock on effective date of grant (rounded up to the nearest 10 shares)

	 
	 

	Miscellaneous
	– Travel and Accident Insurance (including spouse coverage)

	 
	 

	 
	– Certain directors accrue dividends and interest on the phantom stock units granted to them upon the termination of the Non-Employee Director Retirement Plan in 1996

	 
	 

	 
	– Travel and related expenses while on Board business, and actual administrative or similar expenses incurred for Board or Committee business, are paid or reimbursed by the Company Directors may travel on Company aircraft in accordance with the Company's Aviation Policy (primarily to or from Board meetings and while on Board business; in limited circumstances for other reasons if the Company would incur little if any incremental cost, space is available and the aircraft is already in use for another authorized purpose - may be accompanied by immediate family members when space is available).

	 
	


	 
	– Directors may participate in the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan.

	 
	


	 
	– Directors may participate in the Company's matching gift program, which matches gifts to educational institutions to a maximum of $10,000 per donor.
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 28 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 791
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 28 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 792
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 28 Filed 11/17/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 793
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 28 Filed 11/17/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 794
Case 2:11-cv-03329-JLL-MAH Document 28 Filed 11/17/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 795
| 94,353-02

Ti THE COURT OF CAMmNAL APPEALS
FOR THE OISIRICT OF TEXAS

RECEIVED IN
RITN: CHARLES RICKY CpwycE R. COURT CF CRIMINAL APPEALS
CCA No WA-2G 353~03 JUL 27 2015
TRIAL CouRT CASE No, 65 3300

TUL 142015 ~ Abel Acosta, Clerk

Dear Clerk ,

L am requesting 4o Know about the Docker
Sheet in the g 4 v

dg rigina| Proceeding of Nune Oro Tunc
wt lesen ra am eee about the Origing(

OK Shao On Trial
i ; pand ton Now WR-ag, L 35305 on ne"
i unc 0 Tanc Jud ment OROE¢, Thank fo
me, Please bespond, 7) (o4 vv Your

Sincere "hate

Chara kuckey C. hayee > #69039,
Chacles ay cr Cd I, Tt yey

rye Be
Ad Fm 33ay
Tennessee Colony Texas T5890