alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit4-1.htm


    EXHIBIT
4.1

    


    PEOPLES BANCORP
INC.

    138
Putnam Street

    Marietta,
OH  45750

    (740)
373-3155

    


    


    


    


    


    


    March 3,
2009

    


    


    Securities
and Exchange Commission

    100 F
Street, N.E.

    Washington,
D.C.  20549

    


    


    RE:  Peoples
Bancorp Inc. – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2008

    


    


    Ladies
and Gentlemen:

    


    Peoples
Bancorp Inc., an Ohio corporation, is today filing its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-K”), as executed
on March 3, 2009.

    


    Pursuant
to the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Peoples Bancorp
Inc. hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, copies of instruments
and agreements defining (i) the rights of holders of Peoples Bancorp Inc.’s
long-term debt or (ii) the rights of holders of the long-term debt of one of its
consolidated subsidiaries, not being filed or incorporated by reference as an
exhibit to the Form 10-K.  Such long-term debt does not exceed 10% of
the total assets of Peoples Bancorp Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated
basis.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    Peoples
Bancorp Inc.

    


    /s/
EDWARD G. SLOANE

    Edward G.
Sloane

    Executive
Vice President,

    Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Arthur M. Hunter et al., Respondents, *v.*James G. Batterson, Jr., Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

May, 1899.)

Bills and notes — Fraud in the inception of a note requires the holder to prove his bona tides.

Where the maker of a check alleges that the payee obtained it of him by fraud, the holder must, show affirmatively that he himself is a *hona fide*holder.

Appeal from judgment in favor of the plaintiffs entered upon a verdict directed by the court and from an order denying a motion to set aside verdict.

Philip Carpenter, for appellant.

Allan Robinson (Henry W. Bean, of counsel), for respondents.

O’Dwyer, J.

The answer alleged that the check in question had been obtained from defendant by the payee by me.ans of false and fraudulent representations and defendant should have been allowed to prove.the alleged fraud.

*“*If the defendant had been permitted to prove, and had proved, the defense of duress, the burden would have been thereby .thrown, upon the plaintiff to prove that it gave value for the noté, and the circumstances under which it was received.

■ *“A*plaintiff, suing upon a negotiable note or bill, purchased before maturity is presumed, in the first instance, to be a *hona.fide*holder. But, when the maker has shown that the note was' ob*643"tained from him under duress, or that he was defrauded of it, the plaintiff will then be required to show under what circumstances and for what value he became the holder.” First National Bank v. Green, 43 N. Y. 298.

The burden of proof was improperly placed on defendant to show that the plaintiff was not a *bona fide*holder and a holder without notice of the fraud. If the defendant had been permitted to show that the check had been procured from him by fraud upon the part of the payee, the presumption that the plaintiff was a *bona fide*holder would no longer obtain, and plaintiff could not recover without showing that he had received the check without knowledge of the fraud and had paid value therefor. Grant v. Walsh, 145 N. Y. 503.

For the error complained of,, the judgment and order appealed from must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Scotchman, J., concur.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.70


                          AMENDMENT NUMBER NINETEEN TO
             THE METLIFE PLAN FOR TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR OFFICERS

THE METLIFE PLAN FOR TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR OFFICERS (the "Plan") is hereby
amended as follows, effective as of the dates set forth below:

     1.   Section 10.3 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting "or 2007" each
          time it appears therein and replacing it in each such instance with ",
          2007, 2008 or 2009."

     2.   This amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2008.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by an
officer thereunto duly authorized on the date noted below the officer's
signature.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


By: /s/ Lynne E. DiStasio
    ---------------------------------
Name/Title: Lynne E. DiStasio, V.P.
            -------------------------
Date:  12/8/08
      -------------------------------

Witness: /s/ Lucida Plummer
         ----------------------------
#### § 493.833 Condition: Diagnostic immunology.

The specialty of diagnostic immunology includes for purposes of proficiency testing the subspecialties of syphilis serology and general immunology.
#### Louis Hoffman, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court, seventh district, borough of Manhattan, entered in favor of the plaintiff. . ■_ . .. ...

Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.

Joseph I. Green, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The Appellate Division of this department having declared the act creating' the Municipal Court of "the City of New York constitutional (Irwin v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 38 App. Div. 253), the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Ereedmar, P. J., and MaoLear, J.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Williams, Renee (OST) bOTflcST^ /f^// ^ Xj^' ^ 

From: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 4:03 PM 

To: Williams, Renee (OST) 

Subject: FW: Cape Air Service - Massena NY 

From: Samuel, Kathleen A. rmailto:Kathleen.Samuel@alcoa.conn] 

Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 4:03 Pl^ 

To: supervisor(g)town.massena.nv.us 

Cc: Devany, Dennis (OST); imacauiayO)twcnv.rr.com: anicola(iS)twcny.rr.com: 1wicke(g)twcny.rr.com: craiti^twcny.rr.com 

Subject: Cape Air Service - Massena NY 

November 5, 2010 e3-

IVIr. Joseph Gray ^ 

Massena Town Supervisor 

Town Hall ^ 

Massena, NY 13662 TT 

Mr. Gray 

c/:> 

As a twice monthly traveler, I have had the pleasure of utilizing Cape Air flight service between Massena and Albany 

often. Their service and reliability is superior, as is their attentiveness to safety and customer needs. Cape Air employs 

pilots and staff from our local communities, providing economic support for the communities in which they operate. 

I understand that the Town of Massena voted a few months ago to change carriers and opted to utilize a bankrupt 

carrier with service through Boston. To me, this arrangement does not make good business sense. When I fly out of 

Massena my fellow passengers' final destination is generally Albany. The Albany connection provides access for 

educators, hospital staff and local government officials to their headquarters, eliminating overnight stays for meetings 

and eliminating the drive through the Adirondacks. For those with destinations outside the state, Albany Airport is well 

run and small enough to make even tight connections easy to make. 

I further understand that the other carrier offers a larger aircraft. The Cessna 402 aircraft utilized by Cape Air is large 

enough to handle 8 passengers. Rarely have I had a full flight in the two years I have been flying in and out of Massena. 

How can the larger plane offered by the newly proposed carrier be cost effective? Would this market really support 

filled flights in and out of Boston? I doubt it, and Massena Airport's history of short-term service with larger aircraft 

confirms my doubts. 

I am pleased to know that the Town Board has reopened the bidding process and will vote on the matter next week. 

Your board has most likely considered the same concerns I'm addressing here, still, I feel strongly that Cape Air is a good 

fit for Massena and was compelled to voice my concerns. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Kathleen A. Samuel 

'Kitty Samuel 
Quality System Lead Auditor 

Aicoa - Lafayette Operations 

3131 Main Street 

Lafayette, IN 47905 

phone: (765) 771-3161/(315)764-4467 

fax: (765)771-3237 

mobile: (765) 404-3844 

Home Address: 5873 Chase Mills, NY 13621 

Home Phone: (315) 769-6473 

cc: 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS Domestic Analysis, (Dennis.DeVanvtgost.dot.gov) 

Councilperson John Macaulay, (imacaulav@twcnv.rr.com) 

Councilperson Albert Nicola, (anicola@twcnv.rr.com) 

Councilperson John Wicke, (iwicke@twcnv.rr.com) 

Councilperson Charles Raiti (craiti@twcnv.rr.com)
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, D. Gary McRae, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of McRae Industries, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
15

 

   affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: June 24, 2005   /s/ D. Gary McRae     D. Gary McRae  President and CEO  
16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH PADGETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. BUSTAMANTE & GAGLIASSO, P.C.,

Movant-Appellee, A. CURTIS WRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 19-17268 D.C. No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 23, 2021

Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and DRAIN, ** District Judge. 

# FILED
OCT 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The Honorable Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.Joseph Padgett appeals the district court’s order following this panel’s

remand in Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno , 722 F. App’x 608 (9th Cir. 2018). Our mandate instructed the district court to determine whether contractual provisions or an attorney lien authorized the order awarding fees to the law firm, rather than to Padgett. See id. at 610. On remand, the district court concluded an enforceable attorney lien was in effect at the time of the original award of fees, and it awarded reasonable attorney fees to the firm in the amount of $471,056.64. Padgett argues the fee agreement had no legal effect because he voided the agreement based on counsel’s failure to comply with California Business and Professional Code § 6147(a). See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6147(b). Under California law, contingent fee contracts that fail to comply with California Business and Professions Code § 6147(a) are not void ab initio , but may be voided by the client. See id. ; O&C Creditors Group, LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC , 42 Cal. App. 5th 546, 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). Padgett argues the district court erred by looking to whether the fee agreement was in effect when the fees were awarded rather than after he voided it years later. Padgett relies on California law indicating a client may void an agreement after the attorney’s work has been performed. See Alderman v. Hamilton , 205 Cal.

2App. 3d 1033, 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). We are aware of no case, however, that

permits the client to void the contract not merely years after full performance, but after fees have actually been awarded and the award defended by the attorneys on appeal in reliance on the agreement. The firm was properly awarded its reasonable attorney fees. AFFIRMED.

3
#### § 17.1525 [Reserved]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months ended March
31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  May 10, 2004

/s/ Brian T. Beckwith
---------------------
Brian T. Beckwith,
Chief Executive Officer
#### Daniel McTaggart, Respondent, *v.*The Eastman’s Co. of New York, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

April, 1899.)

Negligence — When servants of the same master are not engaged in the same common employment.

A hod-carrier engaged in building a brick wall and the driver of a truck used in a meat business, although hired by the same master, are not fellow servants, engaged in the same common employment, in such a sense as to preclude the hod-carrier from recovering damages of the common master for the negligence of the driver in directing his truck against a ladder which the hod-carrier was descending, and thereby throwing it and him to the ground to his serious personal injury.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*185Nadal, Smyth, Oarrere & Trafford (L. Sidney Oarrere and George O. Remington, of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas 0. O’Sullivan (Emmet J. Murphy, of counsel), for respondent.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J.

The testimony clearly shows that, although the plaintiff and James Murphy were both employed by defendant, yet they were not in the same common employment; they were servants of defendant, but were not fellow servants; the defendant’s driver, Murphy, was employed by it as a driver of one of the wagons used by it in the meat business which it carried on; desiring to extend their business premises, it employed masons and hod-carriers to erect the necessary brick walls of the new addition-to its premises. Plaintiff was one of the hod-carriers so employed, and while employed in that work, he was, by the careless manner in which Murphy acted, thrown from a ladder which was used by him and others employed in the erection of the building mentioned, and severely injured.

Murphy drove his truck against the ladder while plaintiff was in the act of descending, causing it to fall as well as plaintiff; under the circumstances, to contend that these men were in the same common employment and were fellow servants is an absurdity in our opinion. Mo error was committed at the trial, and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

McCarthy and Hascall, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. *>j*
**Exhibit      32**

**Section      1350 Certifications**

| Dated:              May 19,              2006 |                                                  |                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                          |                                                  |
|                                     |                                             |                                          |
|                                          |                                                  | /s/ Roger              E.              Girard |
|                                          | ROGER                E. GIRARD                        |
|                                          | CHIEF                EXECUTIVE                OFFICER |

|                             |                                                  |                               |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Dated:              May 19, 2006 |                                                  |
|                        |                                             |                          |
|                             |                                                       | /s/              Michael K. Dunlop |
|                             | MICHAEL                K. DUNLOP                      |
|                             | CHIEF                FINANCIAL                OFFICER |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,795
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                       416
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,486
<PP&E>                                           8,962
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,905
<BONDS>                                          1,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,128
<SALES>                                          3,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,837
<CGS>                                              208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  44
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,035)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,035)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Illini Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the hereof (the “Report”), I Dennis B. Guthrie, ChiefFinancial 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 tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
| /s/ Dennis B. Guthrie   |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Dennis B. Guthrie.      |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| November 10, 2004       |   |   |

 

----
§ 93.309 Reporting to ORI on the decision to initiate an investigation. ( a ) Within 30 days of finding that an investigation is warranted, the institution must provide ORI with the written finding by the responsible institutional official and a copy of the inquiry report which includes the following information— ( 1 ) The name and position of the respondent;
( 2 ) A description of the allegations of research misconduct;
( 3 ) The PHS support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support;
( 4 ) The basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation; and
( 5 ) Any comments on the report by the respondent or the complainant.
( b ) The institution must provide the following information to ORI on request— ( 1 ) The institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted;
( 2 ) The research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, and copies of all relevant documents; and
( 3 ) The charges for the investigation to consider.
( c ) *Documentation of decision not to investigate.* Institutions must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of inquiries to permit a later assessment by ORI of the reasons why the institution decided not to conduct an investigation. Consistent with § 93.317, institutions must keep these records in a secure manner for at least 7 years after the termination of the inquiry, and upon request, provide them to ORI or other authorized HHS personnel.
( d ) *Notification of special circumstances.* In accordance with § 93.318, institutions must notify ORI and other PHS agencies, as relevant, of any special circumstances that may exist.