alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.24
  AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO THE
 1st
CONSTITUTION BANCORP
 SUPPLEMENTAL
EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
 
 WHEREAS,
1ST
Constitution Bancorp (the “Bancorp”) adopted the 1st
Constitution Bancorp Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “SERP”),
effective October 1, 2002, for the benefit of certain key executives of the
Bancorp and 1st
Constitution Bank (the “Bank,” and together with the Bancorp, the “Company”);
and
  WHEREAS,
Section 9.2 of the SERP authorizes the Board of Directors of the Bancorp (the
“Board”) to, in its sole discretion, amend the SERP at any time in whole or in
part; and
  WHEREAS,
in light of certain changes to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
the Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company and the
Plan participants to amend the Plan effective as of December 31, 2004, so that
the terms of the Plan will apply only to those benefits that have accrued and
become vested thereunder as of such date, with future accruals (if any) and
vesting of benefits accrued but unvested as of December 31, 2004 to be
controlled by the terms of a new plan, known as the 1st
Constitution Bancorp 2005 Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “New
Plan”);
  NOW,
THEREFORE, be it
  RESOLVED,
that the Board hereby adopts the following amendment to the SERP, effective as
of December 31, 2004:
  1.           The
following is added to the end of Article I of the SERP:
  “Notwithstanding
anything else herein to the contrary, effective as of December 31, 2004, no new
Members will be added to the Plan, no further SERP Benefits will accrue
hereunder, and all unvested SERP Benefit liabilities will be transferred to (and
assumed by) the 1st
Constitution Bancorp 2005 Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.  All
SERP Benefits remaining under this Plan will be treated as grandfathered
benefits for purposes of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Plan
will be so administered.  The Plan will not be amended in any manner
that would be treated as a material modification for purposes of Section
409A.  Accordingly, the Plan will be administered in accordance with
its terms, and Section 409A will not apply thereto.”
§ 2812.4-4 Arbitration procedure. ( a ) Within 10 days after the delivery of a written request for arbitration under § 2812.4-1 or § 2812.4-3 of this subpart each of the parties to the disagreement shall appoint an arbitrator and the two arbitrators thus appointed shall select a third arbitrator. If either party fails to appoint an arbitrator as provided herein, the other party may apply to a court of record of the State of Oregon for the appointment of such an arbitrator, as provided by the laws of such State. If within ten days of the appointment of the second of them, the original two arbitrators are unable to agree upon a third arbitrator who will accept the appointment, either party may petition such a court of record of the State of Oregon for the appointment of a third arbitrator. Should any vacancy occur by reason of the resignation, death or inability of one or more of the arbitrators to serve, the vacancy shall be filled according to the procedures applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator whose death, disability, or other inability to serve, created the vacancy.
( b ) By mutual agreement, the parties may submit to a single arbitration proceeding controversies arising under both §§ 2812.4-1 and 2812.4-3.
( c ) The arbitrators shall hear and determine the controversy and make, file, and serve their award in accordance with the substantive standards prescribed in §§ 2812.4-1 and 2812.4-3, for the type of controversy involved and in accordance with the procedures established by the laws of the State of Oregon pertaining to arbitration proceedings. A copy of the award shall also be served at the same time upon the authorized officer or the State Director, either personally or by registered mail.
( d ) Costs of the arbitration proceedings shall be assessed by the arbitrators against either or both of the parties, as may appear equitable to the arbitrators, taking into account the original contentions of the parties, the ultimate decision of the arbitrators and such other matter as may appear relevant to the arbitrators.
[35 FR 9638, June 13, 1970, as amended at 41 FR 21642, May 27, 1976]
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 Geocom Resources Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Hiner, the President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive 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 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.

Dated: October 14, 2004

/s/ John Hiner			______________________
John Hiner
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 3140.50 Duration of the lease.

A combined hydrocarbon lease will be for a primary term of 10 years and for so long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities. If the applicant withdraws the combined hydrocarbon lease application or the BLM denies the conversion application, the suspension on the oil and gas lease will be lifted and the term will be extended by the time remaining on the term of the lease.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Hudson Gardens Realty Corporation, Appellant, against William S. Miller et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents. [2728 Spuyten Duyvil Parkway (Henry Hudson Parkway), Borough of The Bronx.]

—Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. Do opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 2569.404 What must I file with my application form? ( a ) You must include the following along with your signed application form: ( 1 ) A map showing the selection you are applying for: ( i ) Your selection must be drawn on a map in sufficient detail to locate the selection on the ground.
( ii ) You must draw your selection on a map that is either a topographic map or a printout of a map that shows the section lines from the BLM mapping tool, available at *https://www.blm.gov/alaska/2019AKNativeVetsLand .*
( 2 ) A written description of the lands you are applying for, including: ( i ) Section, township, range, and meridian; and
( ii ) If desired, additional information about the location. The submitted map will be given preference if there is a conflict between the written description and the submitted map, unless you specify otherwise.
( b ) In addition to the materials described in paragraph (a) of this section, you must also provide the following materials, under the circumstances described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section: ( 1 ) If you, or the person on whose behalf you are applying, are an Eligible Individual as described in § 2569.301, and were not notified by the BLM of your eligibility, you must provide proof that you, or the person on whose behalf you are applying, are an Eligible Individual, consisting of: ( i ) A Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood or other documentation from the BIA to verify that you (or the person on whose behalf you are applying) are an Alaska Native; and
( ii ) A Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (Form DD-214) or other documentation from DoD to verify that you (or the person on whose behalf you are applying) are a Veteran and served between August 5, 1964 and December 31, 1971.
( 2 ) If you are applying on behalf of the estate of an Eligible Individual who is deceased, you must provide proof that you have been appointed by an Alaska State court as the personal representative of the estate, and an affidavit stating that the appointment has not expired. The appointment may have been made before or after the enactment of the Act, as long as it has not expired.
( 3 ) If you are applying on behalf of an Eligible Individual as that individual's guardian or conservator, you must provide proof that you have been appointed by a court of law, and an affidavit stating that the appointment has not expired.
( 4 ) If you are applying on behalf of an Eligible Individual as that individual's attorney-in-fact, you must provide a legally valid and current power of attorney that either grants a general power-of-attorney or specifically includes the power to apply for this benefit or conduct real estate transactions.
( c ) You must sign the application, certifying that all the statements made in the application are true, complete, and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief and are made in good faith.
(No. 773

Claim denied.)

#### George Erwin, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed December 18, 1924.*

License *fees-*— when *refund will not be made.*Claimant is not entitled to a refund of a license fee paid to a Department of State under a mistake of law.

*Same*— moneys *paid under mistaTce of law cannot be recovered.*Moneys paid voluntarily under a mistake of law cannot be recovered.

J. Harvey Robillard, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed to recover the sum of $34.00 alleged to be an erroneous payment made to procure license for operation of a truck in such manner that it did not come under the Statute requiring: the amount paid as alleged.

The Attorney General comes and files objections to the allowance of said claim on the ground that this court could not and would not allow claims based upon mistakes in the payment of fees to the various departments of the State.

This court in reviewing the facts as appears from the records in the case, is of the opinion that there is no redress upon the claim filed as a matter of law, and it is further the opinion of the court that there is nothing in the-record that would permit the court to make a refund as a matter of equity and good conscience, such as is contemplated by the legislature in creating this court. Therefore the court being without remedy in the premises, denies said claim.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Blast Energy Services,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John
      O’Keefe, as Co-Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the
      purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
      that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/
                John O’Keefe*John
                O’KeefeCo-Chief
                Executive OfficerChief
                Financial OfficerPrincipal
                Accounting OfficerMarch
                30, 2006
§ 2568.121 If an agency determines my allotment is inconsistent with the purposes of a CSU, what can I do if I disagree? ( a ) You may request reconsideration of a CSU manager's decision by sending a signed request to that manager.
( b ) The request for reconsideration must be submitted in person or correctly addressed and postmarked to the CSU manager no later than 90 calendar days of when you received the decision.
( c ) The request for reconsideration must include: ( 1 ) The BLM case file number of the application and parcel, and
( 2 ) Your reason(s) for filing the reconsideration, and any new pertinent information.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 488

 479

 477

 469

 461

 473

 464

 470

 452

 443

 447

 448

 446

 447

 454

 476

 483

 493

 489

 495

 482

 473

 476

 476

 480

 483

 479

 488

 504

 516

 518

 470

 463

 458

 455

 454

 453

 452

 448

 440

 440

 438

 428

 421

 423

 428

 437

 446

 449

 455

 456

 454

 453

 447

 458

 458

 457

 450

 453

 450

 447

 446

 477

 470

 464

 460

 457

 458

 456

 455

 446

 441

 442

 439

 430

 430

 438

 447

 452

 459

 463

 464

 460

 459

 462

 463

 465

 464

 461

 464

 463

 458

 457

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 4, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Abraham Samuels, Appellant.

Johnston, Adel, Taylor, and Lewis, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to affirm.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 966

 1,030

 1,080

 1,083

 1,066

 1,065

 801

 815

 806

 795

 873

 960

 1,006

 1,053

 1,098

 1,177

 1,162

 1,201

 1,193

 1,216

 1,215

 1,222

 1,208

 1,168

 1,154

 1,137

 1,122

 1,062

 1,057

 1,038

 1,041

 950

 973

 1,034

 1,052

 1,040

 861

 622

 691

 729

 738

 772

 859

 926

 1,002

 1,053

 1,101

 1,130

 1,155

 1,177

 1,190

 1,195

 1,194

 1,134

 1,107

 1,041

 1,123

 1,060

 1,046

 1,020

 1,006

 990

 955

 998

 1,052

 1,077

 1,056

 1,021

 675

 764

 785

 758

 823

 911

 979

 1,029

 1,070

 1,119

 1,145

 1,169

 1,186

 1,205

 1,208

 1,212

 1,179

 1,143

 1,135

 1,133

 1,089

 1,053

 1,036

 1,020

 1,029

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 1, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

UNION ISLAND ON OLD RIVER AT MIDDLE RIVER
#### Charles Bailey, Appellant, v. Wagner, Whirler, & Derrick Corp. et al., Respondents.

Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston and Lewis, JJ., concur; Hagarty, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: The failure of defendants to supply a crane with a boom in good working order was not the proximate cause of the happening of the accident. When the crane was delivered plaintiff inspected it and observed that the boom was twisted. Despite this defect, plaintiff and his fellow workers forced the jib onto the boom with difficulty. This was his own voluntary act, with knowledge of the condition. The accident occurred during the course of efforts by fellow workers of the plaintiff to disconnect the jib which plaintiff and others, with knowledge, had so voluntarily joined. Thus, they were engaged in endeavoring to undo their own handiwork. This was not an act for which defendants were responsible. In addition, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in placing his foot directly underneath the jib as efforts were being made to loosen it.
§ 2.27 When will the bureau notify a submitter of a request for their possibly confidential information? ( a ) Except as outlined in § 2.29 of this subpart, a bureau must exercise due diligence to promptly notify a submitter in writing when it receives a FOIA request if: ( 1 ) The requested information has been designated by the submitter as confidential information under § 2.26(a) of this subpart; or
( 2 ) The requested information has not been designated as confidential information by the submitter under § 2.26(a) of this subpart, but the bureau identifies it as possibly confidential information.
( b ) If a voluminous number of submitters are involved, the bureau may publish a notice in a manner reasonably calculated to reach the attention of the submitters (for example, in newspapers or newsletters, the bureau's Web site, or the Federal Register) instead of providing a written notice to each submitter.
[77 FR 76902, Dec. 31, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 11129, Mar. 3, 2016; 84 FR 61828, Nov. 14, 2019]
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-19,518-13 & WR-19,518-14

EX PARTE RAY HIGHTOWER JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 353-D & 354-D IN THE 350 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM TAYLOR COUNTY

Per curiam. HERVEY, J., filed a concurring opinion in which RICHARDSON and

NEWELL JJ., joined. 

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and indecent exposure and sentenced to

life imprisonment in each case. Both the Eleventh Court of Appeals and this Court affirmed his

convictions. Hightower v. State, 736 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1987); Hightower v. State,

822 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Applicant filed applications for writs of habeas corpus

followed by amended applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the

district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant raises allegations of false evidence, actual innocence, and changes in science that

affect the validity of certain trial testimony. The trial court made findings addressing two of
2

Applicant’s three claims and recommended denying relief. Apart from finding of fact 5, we agree

with the trial court’s findings and conclusions. Based on those findings and this Court’s independent

review of the entire record, we deny relief on all claims. 

Filed: May 12, 2021

Do not publish
### §9623. Payment of losses

#### (a) Payments for defaults on guaranteed loans

#### (1) In general

If the Corporation determines that the holder of a loan guaranteed by the Corporation suffers a loss as a result of a default by a borrower on the loan, the Corporation shall pay to the holder the percent of the loss, as specified in the guaranty contract, after the holder of the loan has made such further collection efforts and instituted such enforcement proceedings as the Corporation may require.

#### (2) Subrogation

Upon making a payment described in paragraph (1), the Corporation shall ensure the Corporation will be subrogated to all the rights of the recipient of the payment.

#### (3) Recovery efforts

The Corporation shall pursue recovery from the borrower of the amount of any payment made under paragraph (1) with respect to the loan.

#### (b) Limitation on payments

#### (1) In general

Except as provided by paragraph (2), compensation for insurance, reinsurance, or a guaranty issued under this subchapter shall not exceed the dollar value of the tangible or intangible contributions or commitments made in the project, plus interest, earnings, or profits actually accrued on such contributions or commitments, to the extent provided by such insurance, reinsurance, or guaranty.

#### (2) Exception

#### (A) In general

The Corporation may provide that—

(i) appropriate adjustments in the insured dollar value be made to reflect the replacement cost of project assets; and

(ii) compensation for a claim of loss under insurance of an equity investment under section 9621 of this title may be computed on the basis of the net book value attributable to the equity investment on the date of loss.

#### (3) Additional limitation

#### (A) In general

Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(A)(ii) and except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Corporation shall limit the amount of direct insurance and reinsurance issued under section 9621 of this title with respect to a project so as to require that the insured and its affiliates bear the risk of loss for at least 10 percent of the amount of the Corporation's exposure to that insured and its affiliates in the project.

#### (B) Exception

The limitation under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to direct insurance or reinsurance of loans provided by banks or other financial institutions to unrelated parties.

#### (c) Actions by Attorney General

The Attorney General shall take such action as may be appropriate to enforce any right accruing to the United States as a result of the issuance of any loan or guaranty under this subchapter.

#### (d) Rule of construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude any forbearance for the benefit of a borrower that may be agreed upon by the parties to a loan guaranteed by the Corporation if budget authority for any resulting costs to the United States Government (as defined in section 661a of title 2) is available.

(Pub. L. 115–254, div. F, title II, §1423, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3498.)

#### Termination of Section

For termination of section 7 years after Oct. 5, 2018, see section 9624 of this title.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Raymond R. Clemens, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 57351;

First District (4th Division)

June 12, 1974.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE JOHNSON.

*773James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (John Moran, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Kenneth L. Gillis and Daniel F. Murray, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
Order entered March 5, 2021

In the

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00962-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.W., C.W., AND C.W., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-19-01219

ORDER

Before the Court is the March 3, 2021 request of Martha Grant, Official 

Court Reporter for the 304th Judicial District Court, for an extension of time to file 

the reporter’s record. Due to working remotely, Ms. Grant states she was “just 

seeing” this Court’s February 2, 2021 email notifying her that the reporter’s record 

was past due and instructing her to file it within thirty days. She further states that 

she is unsure how long it will take her to complete the record and that “[a]ny time 

granted would be appreciated.” We GRANT the request and extend the time to 

March 25, 2021.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to add the following email and cell 

phone number to Ms. Grant’s contact information:

marthagrant@att.net

903-746-3343.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE