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






HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT - ADDENDUM
This Participation Agreement Addendum (“Addendum”) is hereby entered into by and between HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (the “Company”) and DAVID A. SPURLING, an employee of the Company (the “Participant,” and together with the Company, the “Parties”).  
RECITALS
		
	A.
	The Company has adopted the Heritage Financial Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan, effective July 1, 2012, as amended and restated August 29, 2012 (the “Plan”);


		
	B.
	The Parties entered into a Participation Agreement, dated January 2, 2014 (the “Participation Agreement”), as amended by the Participation Agreement – Addendum, dated December 19, 2016;


		
	C.
	The Committee has determined that the Participation Agreement should be extended to provide additional benefits to the Participant for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 calendar years; and


		
	D.
	This Addendum is attached to and made a part of the Participation Agreement, incorporates all defined terms therein unless otherwise defined herein, and in the event of any conflict between the terms contained in this Addendum and the terms contained in the Participation Agreement, the terms contained in this Addendum shall supersede and control the obligations and liabilities of the Parties.


AGREEMENT
In consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants of the parties hereto set forth in this Addendum, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby expressly covenant and agree as follows:
Section 1.Company Contributions.  The Company shall continue to make a Company Contribution for Plan Years 2020, 2021, and 2022, on the same terms and conditions set forth in the Participant Agreement, with the performance metrics and targets in connection with such Company Contributions for such Plan Years to be established in the sole discretion of the Committee, following consultation with the Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
Section 2.    Entire Agreement.  This Addendum, in addition to the Participation Agreement and the Plan, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, undertakings, agreements, and arrangements with respect thereto, whether written or oral.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Participant have duly executed this Addendum as of the date set forth below.
HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
By:     
Its:     
PARTICIPANT
        
DAVID A. SPURLING




Date:     


1658012
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LINA AMBASA CASEY,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-73712

Agency No. A041-251-316

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Lina Ambasa Casey, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s deportation order and denying her motion to reopen. 

Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, we construe Casey’s transferred habeas petition

FILED

OCT 6 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 05-73712

as a petition for review, and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See

Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2005). We review de

novo constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and

we grant the petition for review. 

The BIA violated Casey’s equal protection rights by denying section 212(c)

relief on the basis that she was in deportation proceedings. See Servin-Espinoza v.

Ashcroft, 309 F.3d 1193, 1196-99 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s administrative policy of

applying section 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 to bar section 212(c) relief against deportable but not excludable aliens

during the time period between May 14, 1997, and June 7, 1999, violates equal

protection). Accordingly, we remand to give Casey “the same opportunity to apply

for § 212(c) relief that excludable aliens were given.” Id. at 1199. In light of our

disposition, we do not reach the issue of whether AEDPA § 440(d) applies

retroactively to Casey. The government’s mootness argument is unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
**Exhibit 32(e)**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, we, the undersigned, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1)    | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mississippi Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mississippi Power Company. |

 

 

 

|   | /s/Anthony J. Topazi

Anthony J. Topazi

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/Frances Turnage

Frances Turnage

Vice President, Treasurer and

Chief Financial Officer

             |

 

 

Date:  May 7, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

EUDALDO NAVARRO

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellee. §

§ No. 257 , 2020

§

§

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No s

. 17 12003000 (N)

§ 1709006495 (N)

§

Submitted: October 7 , 2020

Decided: October 26 , 2020

Before VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

O R DE R

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion

to affirm, and the Superior Court record, we find it evident that the judgment below

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the Superior

Court’s Ju ly 16, 2020 order . Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, “[t]here is no

separate procedure, other than that which is provided under Superior Court Criminal

Rule 35, to reduce or modify a sentence.” 1 Accordingly , the Superior Court did not

1 Jones v. State , 2003 WL 21210348, at *1 (Del. May 22, 2003). See also Fountain v. State , 139

A.3d 837, 842 (Del. 2016) (“There is no way for an offender to seek to use the amendment [to 11

Del. C. § 3901(d)] retrospectively except by way of a motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule

35(b)....”).2

abuse its disc retion in treating the appellant’s “Motion to Run Level V Sentences

Concurrently” as an untimely

- filed motion f or sentence modification u nder Superior

Court Criminal Rule 35(b).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D that the motion to affirm

is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5267 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5267

To designate the United States courthouse located at 100 Federal Plaza 
 in Central Islip, New York, as the ``Theodore Roosevelt United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2000

   Mr. Lazio (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. 
  Gilman, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Towns, Mr. Hinchey, Mrs. McCarthy of New 
York, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Owens, Mr. Houghton, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Kelly, and 
  Mrs. Maloney of New York) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 100 Federal Plaza 
 in Central Islip, New York, as the ``Theodore Roosevelt United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 100 Federal Plaza in 
Central Islip, New York, shall be known and designated as the 
``Theodore Roosevelt United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Theodore 
Roosevelt United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1491]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-824, A-588-836]


Polyvinyl Alcohol From Japan and Taiwan: Postponement of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary 
results in the antidumping duty administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol from Japan and Taiwan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is extending the time limit for the 
preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative reviews of 
the antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl alcohol from Japan and Taiwan. 
These reviews cover the period May 1, 1998, through April 30, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  January 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Brian Smith or Barbara Wojcik-
Betancourt, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0629, 
respectively.
    Postponement of Preliminary Results of Reviews: The Department of 
Commerce initiated reviews of the antidumping duty orders on polyvinyl 
alcohol from Japan and Taiwan on June 21, 1999 (64 FR 35124). The 
current deadline for the preliminary results in these reviews is 
January 31, 2000. In accordance with section 751 (a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (`` the Act''), as amended, we determine that it is 
not practicable to complete the administrative review of polyvinyl 
alcohol (``PVA'') from Taiwan and Japan within the original time frame 
(see January 12, 1999, Memorandum from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to Robert S. LaRussa, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration). Thus, the Department of 
Commerce is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary 
results until May 30, 2000, which is 365 days after the last day of the 
anniversary month of the order.
    We intend to issue the final results within 120 days of the 
publication of the preliminary results.

    Dated: January 12, 2000.
Richard W. Moreland,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-1491 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**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**








In
      connection with the Annual Report of VoIP, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
      for
      the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony J. Cataldo, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





(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: April 2, 2007/*s/
                Anthony J.
                Cataldo*
              Anthony J. Cataldo
              Chief Executive Officer
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:22-cv-23585-PCH Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:22-cv-23585-PCH Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 3.55-20 Sector San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone.

The Sector San Francisco office is located in San Francisco, CA. The boundaries of Sector San Francisco's San Francisco Bay Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones comprise the land masses and waters of Wyoming within the boundaries of Sweetwater County; Utah, except for Washington, Kane, San Juan, and Garfield Counties; Nevada, except for Clark County; and California, north of San Luis Obispo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties. It also includes all ocean waters and islands contained therein of the EEZ bounded on the north by the northern boundary of the Eleventh Coast Guard District, which is described in § 3.55-1; and on the south by a line bearing 240 °T from the intersection of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo Count lines (approximately 35°47.5′00′′ N latitude) and the California coast to the outermost extent of the EEZ; and on the west by the outermost extent of the EEZ.

[USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36326, July 2, 2007]
§ 958.2 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Complaint* refers to the determination by the Determining Official that an individual has violated the prohibition against mailing hazardous materials and/or related violations under 39 U.S.C. 3018.
( b ) *Initial Decision* refers to the written decision which the Presiding Officer renders.
( c ) *Determining Official* refers to the Chief Postal Inspector or designee.
( d ) *Judicial Officer* refers to the Judicial Officer or Acting Judicial Officer of the United States Postal Service or designee within the Judicial Officer Department.
( e ) *Party* refers to the Postal Service or the respondent.
( f ) *Person* refers to any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or private organization.
( g ) *Presiding Officer* refers to an Administrative Law Judge designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing, or to the Judicial Officer, if an Administrative Law Judge is not available.
( h ) *Recorder* refers to the Recorder of the Judicial Office of the United States Postal Service, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22201-3078.
( i ) *Representative* refers to an attorney or other advocate.
( j ) *Respondent* refers to any person determined by the Determining Official to be liable for civil penalties, clean-up costs and/or damages for mailing hazardous materials and/or related violations under 39 U.S.C. 3018.
[74 FR 18631, Apr. 24, 2009, as amended at 81 FR 40193, June 21, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE  SHEET OF BUSINESS TO BUSINESS,  INC. AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30, 2000 AND THE
RELATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION 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


I,  Edward Lau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB  of  Surforama.com,  Inc.  for  the  year  ended  November 30, 2002 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  Surforama.com,  Inc.


                                       By:       /s/ Edward Lau
                                                 ---------------------

                                       Name:     Edward Lau

                                       Title:    Chief Executive Officer

                                       Date:     March 12, 2003
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 159.89 Power interruption: Type I and II devices.

A discharge device must be designed so that a momentary loss of power during operation of the device does not allow a discharge that does not meet the requirements in § 159.53.

[CGD 73-83, 40 FR 4624, Jan. 30, 1975, as amended by CGD 75-213, 41 FR 15326, Apr. 12, 1976]