alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY

#### Campbell County Board of Supervisors v. Claude M. Royal and Virginia H. Royal Campbell County Board of Supervisors v. Modem Home Construction, Inc.

Case No. CL06000037-00

Case No. CL06000038-00

June 26, 2007

By Judge J. Michael Gamble

I am writing this letter to rule on the demurrer to the first amended complaint for condemnation filed in the above cases. In this regard, the demurrers in each of these cases are overruled.

By order dated March 1,2007,1 ruled that plaintiff’s pleadings failed to comply with §§ 25.1-204 and 25.1-417 of the Code of Virginia. The plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended condemnation complaint. The plaintiff has now filed an amended condemnation complaint in each of these cases. The defendants have filed a demurrer to each of the amended complaints. In particular, the defendants state that Campbell County has failed to allege that it has provided the Royals with the appraisal required by §§ 25.1-204(C) and *46125.1-417. In essence, the demurrer in each case states that Campbell County has failed to appraise the real property before the initiation of negotiations, that Campbell County has not furnished the owner with a copy of the appraisal, and that the appraisal was not prepared for the explicit purpose of valuing the property at issue in these cases.

Section 25.1-417(A)(2) requires a county to appraise the property before the initiation of negotiations, and the owner must be given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the inspection of the property.

Campbell County has now properly alleged that the property was appraised prior to the initiation of negotiations. Further, the county has alleged that the owners were given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the inspection. Next, while Campbell County did not provide the property owners with a copy of the appraisal prior to initiating negotiations and the lawsuit, it has now furnished the plaintiffs with a copy of this appraisal. It has also renewed its offer to the landowners. This has been sufficiently alleged in the first amended complaint. Accordingly, Campbell County has complied with the statutory requirements that the owners be supplied with a copy of the appraisal.

The defendants also assert that the appraisal fails to meet the requirements of § § 25.1 -204(C) and 25.1-417 because it was prepared for the purpose of evaluating the property for acquisition of easement rights to install public water throughout the property and was not prepared for the purposes at issue in this case. After reviewing the appraisal dated April 12,2005, the court finds that the appraisal meets the requirements of the pertinent sections of the Code of Virginia. The area sought for easement rights to install a public water system is essentially the same area sought to remediate, extract, and control the contaminated water. Thus, for the purposes of negotiation and condemnation, it satisfies the requirements of the Code.
Summary of Compensation Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors


 Exhibit 10.44 
 SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
 WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

 The following summarizes the compensation and benefits received by the non-employee Directors of CryoLife. It is intended
to be a summary of compensation arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee Director. 

Annual Retainer and Committee Chair Fees 
 Each of the non-employee Directors of the Board of Directors of CryoLife receives an annual cash retainer of $40,000. Each committee chair also receives a fee in addition to the annual cash retainer.
Annul fees paid to committee chairs were increased on May 20, 2010. The following table shows the annual fee schedule established for the committee chairs both before and after the increase. 

 

									
	 Annual Fees For Committee Chairs
	  	Prior to May 20, 2010	 	  	Effective May 20, 2010	 
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	10,000	  	  	$	15,000	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	7,500	  	  	$	10,000	  
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	5,000	  	  	$	7,500	  
	 Regulatory Affairs and Quality Assurance Policy Committee
	  	$	5,000	  	  	$	7,500	  

 The Presiding
Director also receives an additional $25,000 retainer, with $10,000 paid in cash and $15,000 paid in restricted stock that vests 12 months after the date of issuance. CryoLife pays all cash retainers on a monthly basis. 

Restricted Stock Grants 

Non-employee Directors of CryoLife are eligible for equity grants, which are generally made in May of each year. The annual equity portion
of non-employee Director compensation for fiscal 2010 was paid in the form of a grant of 10,000 shares of restricted stock. These shares were issued following the annual meeting of stockholders and vest on the first anniversary of issuance. The
size and terms of the annual equity grant are subject to annual reevaluation by the Compensation Committee. If a Director ceases to serve as a Director for any reason, he will forfeit any unvested portion of the award.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential-Bache Capital Return
                    Futures Fund 3 and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>

<CIK>               0000857850
<NAME>              Prudential-Bache Capital Return Futures Fund 3
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1997

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          17,311,223

<SECURITIES>                    919,784

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                18,231,007

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  18,231,007

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           709,694

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      17,521,313

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    18,231,007

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                953,865

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,621,844

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (1,667,979)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (14.85)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   (14.85)

</TABLE>
exv10wc









    EXHIBIT 10(c)



 




    DESCRIPTION
    OF LIZ CLAIBORNE, INC.

    2010 EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PLAN



 



    For the 2010 fiscal year, Liz Claiborne Inc. maintained a bonus
    plan for full time salaried employees under which bonuses were
    earned based upon either divisional operating profit or total
    gross corporate costs, as measured against pre-established
    targets, and, as applicable, departmental performance
    considerations and the achievement of individual goals, subject
    to certain terms and conditions. A similar bonus plan is
    anticipated for 2011.
EXHIBIT 32.2





ICONIX BRAND GROUP,
INC.


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
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Warren Clamen, 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 to the best of 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
result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Warren ClamenWarren
    ClamenExecutive Vice President and Chief
      Financial
Officer





February 26, 2010
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### General Finance Corp. of Va. v. Shirley M. Woody et al.

March 5, 1975

Case No. 7683

By JUDGE ALEX H. SANDS, JR.

After reviewing counsel’s argument and the applicable statutes, and after reading the case of *Addison*v. Salyer, 185 Va. 644, I have concluded that the counterclaim and the original claim cannot be separated for purposes of appeal.

While the court has been unable to find, and has not been cited to, any authority from this jurisdiction directly in point, yet, the *Salyer*case, I believe, lends support to the contention made by General Finance Corporation to the effect that the appeals cannot be separated. In this case it is held that an appeal from the Trial Justice (now General District Court) when properly perfected, transfers the entire record to the Circuit or Corporation Court for a retrial as though originally brought in such court. The case holds that the judgment of the Trial Justice (now General District Court) is completely annulled by the appeal and is not thereafter effective for any purpose. There is, of course, no "record" in the true sense of the word in the General District Court, but what the *Salyer*case means by the use of this term undoubtedly is the complete file in the General District Court, or the complete "papers" in the General District Court, when it is stated that the appeal *463brings up the entire record. The counterclaim is not a separate proceeding. The defendant’s case could have been so postured by the institution of a separate action in the General District Court, but this is not done. Instead, the defendant elected to pursue her alleged remedy in the same proceeding which had initially been instituted by the plaintiff.

Under these circumstances, it must be held, as above indicated, that for purposes of appeal the principal claim and the counterclaim are inseparable and the appeal bond given in this case is, accordingly, insufficient.

Defendant will accordingly be given ten days from the date of this letter within which to appear and post a proper appeal bond which will cover the amount of the judgment recovered by the plaintiff in the General District Court.

If the defendant does not elect to post such bond, the appeal will be dismissed.
ex10-24.htm


Exhibit 10.24


 



Waiver and Release







 


This Waiver (this “Waiver”) is made as of October 27, 2010, between CleanTech Innovations, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Dianfu Lu (“Lu”).


 


In consideration of the release by the Company below, Lu hereby consents and agrees to waive all rights to the payment of RMB 7,742,400 due under the Approval on Share Transfer Regarding Creative Bellows Manufacture Co., Ltd., dated September 15, 2010, from the Department of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation of Liaoning Province.


 


In consideration for the execution of the Waiver, Company does hereby release and forever discharge Lu and his successors and assigns of and from all claims, actions, causes of action, liability, demands and damages of whatever name or nature, whether at law or in equity, in any manner having arisen, arising, or to arise from the beginning of time to the date hereof.


 







 


 


CLEANTECH INNOVATIONS, INC.


 


/s/ Bei Lu                                                                                  


By: Bei Lu


Chairman & Chief Executive Officer


 


 


/s/ Dianfu Lu                                                                                    


Dianfu Lu
#### Lakhdar BOUMEDIENE, Detainee, Camp Delta, et al., Appellants v. George W. BUSH, President of the United States, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 05-5062, 05-5063.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 25, 2008.

Louis Richard Cohen, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Douglas Frank Curtis, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, New York, NY, Stephen H. Oleskey, Mark Christopher Fleming, Robert Clifford Kirsch, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale *&*Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, for Appellants.

Eric David Miller, Federal Communications Commission, Robert Mark Loeb, Douglas N. Letter, Litigation Counsel, Catherine Y. Hancock, Paul D. Clement, Peter Douglas Keisler, Gregory George Katsas, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, RANDOLPH * and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Circuit Judge Randolph did not participate in this matter.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

It is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion that in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in *Boumediene v. Bush,*— U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), the court’s judgment filed February 20, 2007, 476 F.3d 981, in the above-captioned consolidated cases be vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that these cases be remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in *Boumediene v. Bush.*The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF PETERSON & CO., LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-2 (Nos. 333-125096, 333-108923, 333-105656, 333-37676, 333-63468, 333-73906, 333-84766), Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-19695, 333-62761, 333-45759, 333-07861) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-105854, 033-61704, 033-61708, 033-63046, 333-24991, 333-26319, 333-60011) of our report dated March 24, 2006 included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Protein Polymer Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005, with respect to the financial statements, included in this Form 10-KSB.

 

 
| /s/ PETERSON & CO., LLP |
|-----------------------------|
| PETERSON & CO., LLP     |

 

 

San Diego, California

March 31, 2006
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4335-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated September 7, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 15, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands is hereby amended to include permanent work under the Public Assistance program among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 7, 2017.

The islands of St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-20459 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Albert *G.*NICKELS, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 35232.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

March 28, 1960.

*211Richard M. Markus, Sindell, Sindell, Bourne, Disbro & Markus, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

George W. Morrison and William J. O’Neill, Asst. U. S. Attys., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

KALBFLEISCH, District Judge.

This is an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671-2680. Plaintiff has filed a motion under Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., for an order requiring the United States to produce statements of two witnesses and photographs of the postal truck and taxicab involved in the subject accident. In support of his motion, plaintiff urges that there is good cause for the production of the documents because he did not consult counsel until almost three months after the accident, whereas the two statements were taken within ten days following the accident and the photographs were taken within twenty minutes after the collision.

Plaintiff does not allege that he has been unable to obtain statements from or take the depositions of the two witnesses. While it is difficult to see why the defendant should be unwilling to furnish copies of these statements to the plaintiff, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has not made the necessary showing of good cause required under Rule 34; therefore, their production will not be required at this time.

Since there appears to be no method whereby the plaintiff might obtain photographs of the damaged vehicles except through the defendant, and such photographs being of importance to both parties in preparing for trial, good cause exists for their production and an order will be entered requiring defendant to furnish plaintiff with all photographs of the damaged vehicles and the scene of the accident.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Rosenkranz, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 of Delphi Financial Group, Inc.;
and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2012



/s/ ROBERT ROSENKRANZRobert RosenkranzChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CEO
      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 Emclaire Financial Corp. (the
“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here (the “Report”), I,
      David L. Cox, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, 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
                Corporation.




/s/David
      L. Cox


David
      L.
      Cox


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      23,
      2007
ex10_16.htm











Exhibit 10.16







Compass Minerals International, Inc.


Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Program for 2011







Effective January 1, 2011 the following compensation program applies to non-employee directors of Compass Minerals International, Inc. (the “Company”):








	
  

	
1.

	
Annual Retainer -   Each non-employee director will receive from the Company an annual retainer of $125,000 per year.








	
  

	
a)

	
$50,000 amount per year is the cash retainer and may be deferred into the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan at the election of the director; and








	
  

	
b)

	
$75,000 amount per year, must be deferred into the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan until ownership levels are met, and then may be or taken in shares of stock of the Company.  Deferred amounts are converted into units equivalent to the value of the Company’s common stock and accumulated deferred fees are distributed in common stock.













	
  

	
2.

	
Ownership Levels -  Each non-employee member of the Board of Directors is required to obtain and to maintain ownership in Company stock (or its equivalent) equal to five times the annual cash retainer, which amount is to be achieved within five years of joining the Board.













	
  

	
3.

	
Committee Service Fee -   Each non-employee director will receive from the Company an annual fee for serving on each of the following committees, as follows:













	
Audit Committee

	
$7,500


	
Compensation Committee

	
$5,000


	
Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee

	
$5,000


	
Environmental, Health & Safety Committee

	
$5,000













	
  

	
4.

	
Committee Chair Fee.  Each non-employee director who serves as a committee chair for 2011 will receive from the Company the following annual fee, as follows:













	
Audit Committee

	
$15,000


	
Compensation Committee

	
$10,000


	
Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee

	
$7,500


	
Environmental, Health & Safety Committee

	
$7,500













	
  

	
5.

	
Lead Independent Director.  The Lead Independent Director will be paid an annual fee in the amount of $20,000 per year.













	
  

	
6.

	
Cash v. Deferral Election.  Non-employee directors may elect to receive fees paid for serving on a committee, as a committee chair, and as Lead Independent Director in cash or may elect to defer such into the Company’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan.