alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.61
 Triad Guaranty Inc.
Board of Directors Compensation Program Summary
  Non-Employee Directors
 1.
    
    Retainer: Each non-employee director shall receive an annual
cash retainer of $85,000, payable in equal quarterly installments in advance.
Each non-employee director shall also receive a fully vested annual restricted
stock award of 10,000 shares of the Companys common stock pursuant to the
Companys 2006 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan) and the related
restricted stock agreement. For 2009, the award shall be pro rated at 7,500 for
three quarters of service.2.
    
    Committee Chairs: Directors who are chosen to serve as
chairs of any of the three standing Board committees  the Audit Committee,
Compensation Committee or Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee (together,
the Committees)  will no longer be entitled to additional cash compensation for
such service. In addition, the single director who is designated as the Lead
Independent Director of the Board also will no longer receive any additional cash
compensation for such service.3.
    
    Meeting Fees: There will no longer be any meeting fees paid
to any director for attendance at or participation in Board or Committee meetings
(whether regular, special, in-person or telephonic and regardless of meeting
length), except as follows:
 a)
    
    Each non-employee director is expected to
attend up to one in-person or telephonic meeting of the Board each
month without additional compensation; attendance or participation by
a director at the second and each subsequent meeting of the Board
(whether in-person or telephonic and regardless of meeting length)
held within a calendar month shall be compensated at the rate of
$1,500 for each such meeting; andb)
    
    Each Committee member is expected to attend
up to two meetings of each of the Committees on which he serves in
each calendar quarter without additional compensation; attendance or
participation by a director as a Committee member at the third and
each subsequent meeting of each such Committee (whether in-person or
telephonic




---



##### 



and regardless of meeting length) held during such quarter shall be
compensated at the rate of $1,500 per meeting.
 Chairman of the Board
 1.
    
    Retainer: The Chairman of the Board shall receive an annual cash
retainer of $156,000, payable in equal quarterly installments in advance. The
Chairman shall also receive a fully vested annual restricted stock award of
17,000 shares of the Companys common stock pursuant to the Plan and the related
restricted stock agreement. For 2009, the award shall be pro rated at 12,750
shares for three quarters of service.2.
    
    Meeting Fees: The Chairman shall not be compensated for
attending Board or Committee meetings (whether regular, special, in-person or
telephonic and regardless of meeting length).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
        THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE 
         ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
            ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
                          (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,662
<SECURITIES>                                    13,718
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,095)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,195
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,057<F1>
<PP&E>                                          39,131<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (26,577)<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,959
<BONDS>                                          1,511<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,073  
<OTHER-SE>                                     (33,693)<F5>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,850
<SALES>                                         14,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,532<F6>
<CGS>                                            9,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   418
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (4006)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (4006)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,006)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.33)

<FN>
<F1>  Includes Costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings
       on uncompleted contracts of $2,738 and other current assets
       of $704.
<F2>  Includes portable simulation theaters and film inventory.
<F3>  Includes portable simulation theaters and film inventory 
<F4>  Includes the non-current portions of capital leases.
<F5>  Accumulated deficit.
<F6>  Includes interest income of $491.
</FN>

        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JUSTIN EDWARD THOMAS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 149 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2185

To suspend until January 1, 1996, the duty on Resolin Red F3BS

Components I and II.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1993

Mr. RAVENEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means.

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1996, the duty on Resolin

Red F3BS Components I and II.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RESOLIN RED F3BS COMPONENTS I AND II.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:
2

•HR 2185 IH

‘‘ 9902.32.11 N-[2-[(2,6-

dicyano-4-

methylphenyl)-

azo]-5-

(diethylamino)-

phenyl]-methane-sulfonamide

and N-[2-[(2,6-

dicyano-4-

methylphenyl)-

azo]-5-(di-lpropylamino)-

phenyl]-methane-sulfonamide

(provided for in

subheading

3204.11.20) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/95 ’’.

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with

3 respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse

4 for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date

5 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7001
MICHAEL ALLEN GUY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1361) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen Guy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. 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's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Guy v. South Carolina , No. CA-96-1361 (D.S.C. Apr. 3, 1997).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000829092
<NAME>                        MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-10-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         6,073
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,146
<PP&E>                                         208,599
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (69,925)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          28,838
<BONDS>                                        106,846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,615
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               47,442
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               33,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,797
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1486** 

STANLEY CHEESEBORO , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. CITY OF COLUMBIA , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 02173

- JFA )

Submitted : September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Stanley Cheeseboro, Appellant Pro Se. William Allen Nickles, III, NICKLES LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stanley Cheeseboro appeals the d istrict court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended . We have reviewed the record and find no reversibl e error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cheeseboro v. City of Columbia , No. 3:11

- cv - 02173

- JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 15, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented i n the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION
906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Symbollon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Paul C. Desjourdy, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
March 30, 2009     /s/ Paul C.
Desjourdy


Paul C.
Desjourdy


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Order entered February 28, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00030-CV

IN RE MELISSA LARSEN,THE CARDIO GROUP, LLC, LARSEN 

MEDICAL, LLC D/B/A CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES SERVICES, LLC, 

PRACTICE FREEDOM COACHING LLC, CARDIOLOGY INSTITUTE 

OF AMERICA LLC, TRACTION INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, LLC AND 

CARDIOCLOUD, LLC, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. DC-18-05693, DC-21-04344

ORDER

Before the Court is real party in interest’s February 22, 2022 motion for an 

extension of time to file a response to relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. The 

motion is GRANTED. Real party in interest may file a response, if any, to the 

petition for writ of mandamus on or before March 23, 2022.

/s/ David J. Schenck

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
**Exhibit23.1**

** **

 

 

                  **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-167472 and 333-155698)and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-27429 and 333-125264) of Associated Estates RealtyCorporation of our report dated February 23, 2011, relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Cleveland, Ohio

February23, 2011

----
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-87013, 333-104321 and 333-111751 on Form S-8 of The Sports
Authority, Inc. of our reports dated March 22, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements of The Sports Authority Inc. and management's report on the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Sports Authority Inc. for the year ended January 28, 2006.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP

Denver,
Colorado
March 22, 2006

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in a real estate joint
venture.  In accordance with industry practice, its balance sheet is un
classified.  For full information, refer to the accompanying unaudited
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,666,004
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,631,145<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,584,114<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,631,145<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               714,188<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,002<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                669,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            669,186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   669,186
<EPS-BASIC>                                     3.48<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include an investment
in unconsolidated partnership of $14,948,206.
<F2>Represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and other liabilities of $47,031.
<F4>Total revenue includes equity in earnings of unconsolidated partnership
of $639,009 and other revenue of $75,179.
<F5>Other expenses consist of general and administrative expenses.
<F6>Represent net income per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.4****AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT**     This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) dated as of November 18, 2002 to that certain StockOption Agreement (the “Stock Option Agreement”), dated as of January 18, 2001, and amended as ofOctober 14, 2002, by and between Natural Health Trends Corp., a Florida corporation the(“Company”), and Benchmark Consulting Group (the “Optionee”).**WITNESSETH :     **WHEREAS,**the Company and Optionee are parties to the Stock Option Agreement, asamended, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and     **WHEREAS,**the parties to the Stock Option Agreement desire to amend the Stock OptionAgreement to amend the cashless exercise provision contained therein.     **NOW, THEREFORE,**in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein, thereceipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:     1. Effective as of the date hereof, the Stock Option Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the following phrase contained in the first sentence of Section 4:               “the Optionee may, at its election”and in lieu thereof the following phrase shall be inserted:               “the Company may, at its election, permit the Optionee to”.     2. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without regard to principles of conflicts of law.     3. Except as otherwise specifically set forth herein, all of the terms and provisions of the Stock Option Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.     **IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the day first abovewritten.      **NATURAL HEALTH TRENDS CORP.****
#### David D. EVERIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE, Donna Mickley, Secretary of the Interior, Dayne Barron, Attorney General of U.S., and Douglas Fong, Defendants-Appellees, and City of Medford, Oregon, Mark D. Clarke, Jane Doe, John Doe, and Owen M. Panner, Defendants.

No. 2014-1358.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 5, 2014.

David D. Everist, Applegate, OR, pro se. Peter Krzywicki, Trial Attorney, K. Elizabeth Witwer, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In light of David D. Everist’s response to this court’s show cause order, we consider whether this appeal should be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Everist appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon that dismissed his complaint appearing to allege violations under the Federal Land Policy Management Act and Executive Order No. 12630. While this court’s jurisdiction extends to Little Tucker Act claims for no more than $10,000, *see*28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2), here to the extent that Everist’s complaint can be read as raising such a claim, it appears that he asked for more than the threshold amount. Because this case does not fall within our jurisdiction, the court will transfer the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The appeal is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

(2) All other pending motions are transferred to the Ninth Circuit.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2284 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2284

 To extend until December 31, 1994, the date required for the State of 
     Pennsylvania to submit certain provisions of a Clean Air Act 
      implementation plan applicable to the Liberty Borough PM-10 
              Nonattainment Area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1993

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend until December 31, 1994, the date required for the State of 
     Pennsylvania to submit certain provisions of a Clean Air Act 
      implementation plan applicable to the Liberty Borough PM-10 
              Nonattainment Area, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR PLAN SUBMISSION.

    In recognition of the unique and distinctive geographical and 
meteorological characteristics of the Liberty Borough PM-10 
Nonattainment Area in Western Pennsylvania (encompassing Clairton, 
Glassport, Port Vue, Liberty Borough, and Lincoln), the deadline 
applicable to that area under section 189(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7514(a)(2)(B) (relating to date for implementation plan 
submissions for PM-10 Moderate Nonattainment Areas) shall be extended 
until December 31, 1994.

                                 <all>
```