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

Exhibit 10.2

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION
NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN




This Second Amendment is made to the First Commonwealth Financial Corporation Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective December 18, 2017.  This Amendment is effective as of January 1, 2021, by First Commonwealth Financial Corporation (the “Company”).


BACKGROUND


A.    The Company previously adopted and currently maintains the First Commonwealth Financial Corporation Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective December 18, 2017, and as further amended from time to time (the “Plan”).


B.    The Company desires to amend the Plan to change its matching contribution formula to reflect parallel changes made in the matching contribution formula for the First Commonwealth Financial Corporation 401(k) Retirement Savings and Investment Plan


C.    Section 11.1 of the Plan reserves the right to the Compensation and Human Resources Committee to amend the Plan at any time.


AMENDMENTS


1.    The following is added after the end of Section 4.2 of the Plan:


    “Effective for Plan Years beginning on and after January 1, 2021, if and only if a Participant’s matching contribution under the Basic 401(k) Plan was maximized because of the applicable limits under the Code and Basic 401(k) Plan for the Plan Year, the Employer shall make a contribution to this Plan on behalf of such Participant for that Plan Year, regardless of whether the Participant has elected to have Elective Contributions made on his or her behalf, equal to 


    (i) the total amount of matching contributions that would otherwise have been contributed to the Basic 401(k) Plan for the Participant for the applicable Plan Year, less 


    (ii) the amount of matching contributions that have been contributed to the Participant’s account under the Basic 401(k) Plan for the applicable Plan Year.  


    In no event may this amount be less than $0.00.”


2.    The remainder of the Plan shall remain unchanged.







Exhibit 10.2

The Company has caused this Second Amendment to be executed on its behalf, by its officer duly authorized on the first date written above.




                FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION


Attest:


/s/ Matthew C. Tomb                                
By:  Matthew C. Tomb
Its:  Executive Vice President, Secretary


                            /s/ T. Michael Price                
                            By:  T. Michael Price
                            Its:  President and Chief Executive Officer


        
2
¿Has

 ESCUCHADO 

 algo sobre...?

Estafas de 

citas por internet

Estas estafas funcionan así:

Conoces a alguien especial en un sitio web de citas. Enseguida te dice que 

quiere abandonar el sitio de citas y comunicarse contigo por email o por 

teléfono. Él te dice que te ama, pero que vive lejos — quizá por motivos de 

trabajo o porque está en el servicio militar.

Y entonces, te pide dinero. Podría decirte que es para pagar el ticket de 

avión para visitarte. O para una cirugía de emergencia. O para alguna otra 

cosa urgente.

Los estafadores, tanto los hombres como las mujeres, crean perfiles de citas 

falsos y a veces usan fotos de otras personas — incluso fotos robadas de 

gente que verdaderamente está en el servicio militar. Desarrollan relaciones 

— algunos llegan a fingir planes de matrimonio — antes de desaparecer con 

tu dinero.

Esto es lo que puedes hacer:

1. Para. No le envíes dinero. Nunca le hagas una transferencia de dinero 

a un enamorado virtual, tampoco coloques dinero en una tarjeta de 

débito pre-pagada ni le envíes dinero en efectivo. No lo recuperarás 

nunca.

2. Dale esta información a un amigo. Tal vez no hayas recibido una 

de estas llamadas, pero es probable que conozcas a alguien que la 

recibirá — si aún no lo hizo.
¡Pásalo! ¿Quieres saber más? Suscríbete para recibir 

alertas de fraude en ftc.gov/suscripciones.

Comisión Federal de Comercio | ftc.gov/pasalo

Por favor, reporta las estafas.

Si detectas una estafa, por favor repórtala a la 

Comisión Federal de Comercio (FTC).

•	 Comunícate con la FTC llamando al 1-877-FTCHELP (1-877-382-4357) o TTY 1-866-653-4261

•	 En internet: ftc.gov/queja

Tu queja puede ayudar a proteger a otra gente. 

Al presentar una queja, tú puedes ayudar a 

los investigadores de la FTC a identificar a los 

impostores y frenarlos antes de que logren sacarle 

el dinero, que tanto cuesta ganar, a otra persona. 

Esto, realmente, hace la diferencia.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30187

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS CIPRANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-3407-LLM

- - - - - - - - - -

February 11, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Ciprano appeals from the denial of his motion to

vacate, set-aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. He argues that he was not properly advised of the fact

that the ultimate right to decide whether or not to testify

belonged to him.

Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we

find that the district court did not clearly err in finding that

Ciprano had been advised several times of his right to testify on
No. 97-30187

-2-

his own behalf, and that he voluntarily waived that right. See

United States v. Thompson, 122 F.3d 304, 306 (5th Cir. 1997). As

Ciprano’s argument is without arguable merit, the appeal is thus

frivolous and is dismissed pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Statement of Chief Financial Officer under 18 U.S.C. § 1350



I, James A Clark, the chief financial officer of Critical Path, Inc. (the
Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



| | (i) | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ James A. Clark
|James A. Clark    



November 9, 2005



A signed original of this written statement
required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to Critical Path, Inc. and will be retained by Critical Path, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A2000. HOWARD HAWKINS v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS et al.

Howard Hawkinsfiled this appeal from the dismissal of hissuit againstseveral

defendants, including the Georgia Department of Corrections. When he filed his

action, Hawkins wasincarcerated. Therefore, under the PrisonLitigationReformAct

of 1996 (OCGA § 42-12-1 etseq.), Hawkins was required to follow the discretionary

appeal procedures to obtain appellate review of the trial court’s order dismissing his

case. See In the Interest of K. W., 233 Ga. App. 140 (503 SE2d 394) (1998).

Hawkins’sfailure to comply with the discretionary appeal requirements deprivesthis

Court of jurisdiction to consider his appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

July 16, 2018

07/16/2018
### Geology and paleontology of Canal Zone and adjoining parts of Panama; description of Tertiary mollusks (Gastropods: Columbellidae to Volutidae)

By: W. P. Woodring

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp306C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 8.6 Forms of publication. ( a ) Under section 1506 of title 44, United States Code, the Administrative Committee authorizes publication of the Code of Federal Regulations in the following formats: ( 1 ) Paper;
( 2 ) Online on *www.govinfo.gov* (44 US.C. 4101).
( b ) The Director of the Federal Register is authorized to regulate the format of the Code of Federal Regulations according to the needs of users and compatibility with the facilities of the Government Printing Office. The Director may provide for the Code of Federal Regulations to be printed in as many separately bound books as necessary and oversee the organization and means of access to material in the online edition.
[65 FR 8843, Feb. 23, 2000, as amended at 87 FR 80002, Dec. 29, 2022]
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Breaking Barriers: First Australian Deputy Commander Arrives at PACAF

By Tech. Sgt. Jimmie D. PikePacific Air Forces Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
Exhibit 32.2

                        GLOBAL EQUITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                              A Nevada Corporation
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Global Equity  International,  Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Enzo
Taddei, Chief Financial Officer, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: March 30, 2012                      /s/ Enzo Taddei
                                           -------------------------------------
                                      By:  Enzo Taddei
                                      Its: Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0704 JACOB SMITH,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. Appellant Jacob Smith has filed a motion for a 60-day which to file his reply brief. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion is GRANTED shall be filed on or before June 18,2021. No further extensions will be granted. DATED this 13 day ofApril,2021. For the Court, ORDER

extension oftime within

. Appellant's reply brief

ChiefJustice 04/15/2021
EXHIBIT 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knight Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Thomas M. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    THOMAS M. JOYCEName: Thomas M. Joyce Title: Chief Executive
Officer Date: May 9, 2006




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
154 So.2d 312

#### Ex parte Norma Moore BRUCE.

5 Div. 775.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1963.

James Noel Baker, Opelika, for petitioner.

J. Sydney Cook, Jr., Auburn, for respondent.

HARWOOD, Justice.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.
151 So.2d 790

#### Ex parte Roosevelt HOWARD. In re Roosevelt HOWARD v. STATE of Alabama.

3 Div. 25.

Supremo Court of Alabama.

April *4,*1963.

*60Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Montgomery, for petitioner.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Geo. D. Mentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LAWSON, Justice.

Roosevelt Howard was convicted in the Circuit Court of Butler County of murder in the first degree. His punishment was fixed at death. On appeal to this court the judgment of conviction was affirmed. Application for rehearing was later overruled. Howard v. State, 273 Ala. 544, 142 So.2d 685.

Howard has filed in this court a petition to be permitted to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. Such is the proper procedure where this court has affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Howard, a Negro, bases his application on the assertion that members of his race were systematically excluded from the grand jury which indicted him and the petit jury which tried him, solely on account of race and color.

It is not contended that any matter involving the regularity of either the grand jury or petit jury was presented in his trial in the circuit court, either as originally conducted or on motion for a new trial.

The matter of exclusion from jury service solely because of race or color is a Federal question. Recent Federal decisions have held, if we understand them correctly, that the matter of jury exclusion may be raised in post-conviction proceedings where it does not appear that there was a waiver in the trial court of the right to attack the composition of the jury on constitutional grounds. United States ex rel. Seals v. Wiman, 5 Cir., 304 F.2d 53, certiorari denied by United States Supreme Court, 372 U.S. 915, 83 S.Ct. 717, 9 L.Ed.2d 722; United States ex rel. Goldsby v. Harpole, 5 Cir., 263 F.2d 71. Elowever, we do-not understand the cases just cited to hold that a defendant may gamble on the outcome of his trial and then raise the jury exclusion question in a post-conviction proceeding where, at the time of his trial, he had knowledge of facts which would have enabled him to attack the composition of the grand or petit jury.

For aught appearing in the petition presently before us, petitioner possessed knowledge of such facts. There is no averment in the petition denying that there was a waiver in the trial court. Hence, we hold that the prayer of the instant petition must be denied without prejudice to the right of Howard to file another petition in this court.

Petition denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Edwin R. POWELL and Joshua E. Turner, Individually, and the Partnership Known as Powell *&*Turner, Composed of Edwin R. Powell and Joshua E. Turner, Alleged Bankrupts. Edwin R. Powell and Joshua E. Turner, Individually, and the Partnership Known as Powell & Turner, Composed of Edwin R. Powell and Joshua E. Turner, Appellants.

No. 11372.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. 18, 1954.

Decided Nov. 26, 1954.

Samuel R. Russell, Georgetown, Del., (Tunnell & Tunnell, Georgetown, Del., on the brief), for appellants.

William Prickett, Wilmington, Del. (John E. Mulder, Wexler, Mulder & Weisman, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Before GOODRICH, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the question whether on á given date Edwin R. Powell and Joshua E. Turner were farmers and thus immune to an involuntary adjudication of bankruptcy under Section 4 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 22. The referee found that they were not. This finding was approved by the district judge who set out his reasons in a thoroughly considered opinion. In re Powell, D.C.D.Del.1954, 121 F.Supp. 33. There is, in our judgment, ample evidence to support his conclusion.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10892

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN REGINALD HOLT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-135

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John Reginald Holt, federal prisoner # 39118-177, seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion challenging his jury trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine.

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, 

if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). “[T]he timely 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10892 Document: 00513517669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016
No. 14-10892

2

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

This court reviews de novo questions of law regarding jurisdiction. 

Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508, 513 (5th Cir. 2006). The final 

judgment was entered on May 29, 2014; therefore the final day for filing a 

timely notice of appeal was July 28, 2014. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i). 

Even assuming that Holt’s sworn declaration that he placed the notice of 

appeal into the prison’s general mail system on July 23, 2014, is true, the 

record reflects that Holt failed to comply with the statutory authority and 

prison regulations in failing to use the prison’s legal mail system. FED. R. APP.

P. 4(c)(1); Dison v. Whitely, 20 F.3d 185, 187 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, Holt 

has not shown that he is entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule. See Medley 

v. Thaler, 660 F.3d 833, 838 (5th Cir. 2011). Because Holt did not file a timely 

notice of appeal, his appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Bowles, 

551 U.S. at 214.

COA DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 14-10892 Document: 00513517669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2016