alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

FIRST FARMERS AND MERCHANTS CORPORATION

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 Quarterly Report of First Farmers and Merchants Corporation (the "Company') on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

Date         May 7, 2004___ 
________/s/ T. Randy Stevens_________________________  
T. Randy Stevens, Chief Executive Officer and President      
Date         May 7, 2004___ 
______/s/ Patricia N. McClanahan______________________  
Patricia N. McClanahan, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
§ 1582.101 Applicability. The requirements of this subpart apply to the following: ( a ) Amtrak (also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation).
( b ) Each owner/operator identified in Appendix A to this part.
( c ) Each owner/operator described in § 1582.1(a)(1) through (3) that serves as a host railroad to a freight operation described in § 1580.101 of this subchapter or to a passenger train operation described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
[85 FR 16511, Mar. 23, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 23633, May 4, 2021]
EX-10.90



 Exhibit 10.90 

Form of Award Supplement Providing for Dividend Equivalent Rights 

ING U.S., INC. 
 2013
Omnibus Employee Incentive Plan 
 Award Supplement 

THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this [    ] day of [            ],
2013, (the “Award Supplement”) between ING U.S., Inc. (“ING U.S.”) and [                    ] (the
“Grantee”). 
 WHEREAS, Grantee was granted an Award or Awards of performance shares, restricted stock units or deferred
shares under the 2013 Omnibus Employee Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) on May [    ], 2013 pursuant to an Award Agreement or Award Agreements, which Award or Awards may have represented either or both of (i) the
conversion of awards previously granted by ING Groep N.V. pursuant to its Long-Term Sustainable Performance Plan or (ii) an award of restricted stock units pursuant to a Deal Incentive Award entered into with Grantee in connection with the
initial public offering of ING U.S. (the “Covered Awards”); 
 WHEREAS, under the Plan, the Committee has the ability to amend any
outstanding Award Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, under the Plan, the Committee may include in any Award Agreement with respect to any Award a
dividend equivalent right entitling Grantee to receive amounts equal to all or a portion of the regular cash dividends that would be paid on the shares of Common Stock covered by such Award if such shares had been delivered pursuant to such Award.

 WHEREAS, the Committee has determined to supplement the Grantee’s Award Agreement or Award Agreements to provide for dividend equal
rights in respect of Covered Awards, subject to the terms of the Plan, the Award Agreement and this Award Supplement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	The following paragraph shall be added to Grantee’s Award Agreement or Award Agreements as a separate section and shall be deemed to be part of such Award Agreement or Award Agreements as if set forth therein:


 Dividend Equivalent Rights. The Grantee has, with respect to all awards granted hereby a conditional right to
receive amounts equal to the regular cash dividends that would be paid on the shares of Common Stock covered by the Award if such shares had been delivered pursuant to such Award. Such amounts will be paid in cash, without interest, subject to the
same terms and conditions, including but not limited to those related to vesting, forfeiture, cancellation and payment, that apply to the shares of Common Stock covered by the Award to which such dividends are related. The Grantee will have only the
rights of a general unsecured creditor of ING U.S. until payment of such amounts is made as specified herein. 








	 	2.	The Grantee’s continued acceptance of the Award or Awards constitutes agreement to the terms and conditions of this Award Supplement. 


 

	 	3.	Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Award Supplement shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the same definition as in the Plan or the Award Agreement, as applicable.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending July 7, 2012

|Filer                  | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                             
|---------------------- | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|INDEPENDENT BANK CORP. | * 3A5* 3A3    | Application by Independent Bank Corp, Rockland, Massachusetts, to acquire Central Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary bank, Central  Co-operative  Bank, both of Somerville, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(3) and 3(a)(5) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/30/2012
|Newspaper:             | Not available
|Federal Register:      | 07/30/2012   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                 | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|-------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|CANTON CO-OP BK, CANTON, MASSACHUSETTS | 379470 | 02/27/2012 | 06/10/2012     | S         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### Isaac F. Tysen, *Respondent, v.*Charles H. Tompkins, Appellant.—

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order denying motion to amend notice of appeal affirmed; order granting leave to serve supplemental reply affirmed. Opinions by

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J.
#### Frank L. Perley, Appellant, v. Lee Shubert, Respondent

*Perley*v. *Shubert,*128 App. Div. 925, affirmed.

(Submitted June 14, 1910;

decided September 27, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 10, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract.

*FranJelin Bien*for appellant.

*Benjamin F. Cardoso*and *William Klein*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Yann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
#### Clarissa Dale, *Respondent, v.*David Main, *Appellant.*

— Order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.
#### Woodman *& a. v.*Clay *& ux.*

To rebut an inference of fraud, it is competent to show with what intention and under what influences a party may have done or omitted to do a significant act.

Bill in Equity, by judgment creditors of Charles H. Clay, charging that he had conveyed property to his wife in fraud of his creditors, and praying for an account and for the application of the property in discharge of the plaintiffs’ judgment. It appearing that the property continued to be taxed to Mr. Clay after he conveyed it to his wife, the defendants excepted to the exclusion of the proffered testimony of Mrs. Clay, that she permitted the property to be so taxed because of her husband’s representations to her as to what “ the selectmen said about it.”

*Tebbetts*and *Gopeland $ Hdgerly,*for the plaintiffs.

*Hobbs*and *Sanborn,*for the defendants.

Foster, J.

The good faith of the parties to the conveyance was material upon the question of its validity; and the continued taxation of the property to the husband, with the knowledge and consent of his "wife, was a significant circumstance affecting that question. It was competent for the defendants to seek to rebut an inference of fraud by showing with what intention, under what influences, and in consequence of what representations Mrs. Clay may have done or refrained from doing a significant act, such as permitting the property to be taxed to her husband. 1 Gr. Ev., *s.*101; *Carter*v. *Beals,*44 N. H. 408, 412; *Graves*v. *Graves,*45 N. H. 323, 324; *Hale*v. *Taylor, ib.*405, 407; *Phenix Ins. Co.*v. *Clark,*58 N. H. 164.

*Hew trial granted.*

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
§ 1108.1 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) *Arbitrator* means a single person appointed to arbitrate pursuant to this subpart.
( b ) *Arbitrator Panel* means a group of three people appointed to arbitrate pursuant to this subpart. One panel member would be selected from the roster by each side to the arbitration dispute, and the parties would mutually agree to the selection of the third-lead arbitrator under the “strike” methodology described in § 1108.6(c).
( c ) *Arbitration program* means the program established by the Surface Transportation Board in this subpart under which participating parties, including rail carriers and shippers, have agreed voluntarily in advance, or on a case-by-case basis to resolve disputes about arbitration-program-eligible matters brought before the Board using the Board's arbitration procedures.
( d ) *Arbitration-program-eligible matters* are those disputes or components of disputes, that may be resolved using the Board's arbitration program and include disputes involving one or more of the following subjects: rates; Demurrage; accessorial charges; misrouting or mishandling of rail cars; and disputes involving a carrier's published rules and practices as applied to particular rail transportation.
( e ) *Counterclaim* is an independent arbitration claim filed by a respondent against a complainant arising out of the same set of circumstances or is substantially related to the underlying arbitration complaint and subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
( f ) *Final arbitration decision* is the unredacted decision served upon the parties 30 days after the close of the arbitration's evidentiary phase.
( g ) *Interstate Commerce Act* means the Interstate Commerce Act as amended by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 and the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015.
( h ) *Lead arbitrator or single arbitrator* means the arbitrator selected by the strike methodology outlined in § 1108.6(c).
( i ) *Monetary award cap* means a limit on awardable damages of $25,000,000 in rate disputes, including any rate prescription, and $2,000,000 in practice disputes, unless the parties mutually agree to a lower award cap. If parties bring one or more counterclaims, such counterclaims will be subject to a separate monetary award cap.
( j ) *Practice disputes* are disputes involving demurrage; accessorial charges; misrouting or mishandling of rail cars; and disputes involving a carrier's published rules and practices as applied to particular rail transportation.
( k ) *Statutory jurisdiction* means the jurisdiction conferred on the STB by the Interstate Commerce Act, including jurisdiction over rail transportation or services that have been exempted from regulation.
( l ) STB or Board means the Surface Transportation Board.
( m ) *Rate disputes* are disputes involving the reasonableness of a rail carrier's rates.
[78 FR 29079, May 17, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 69414, Oct. 6, 2016; 88 FR 729, Jan. 4, 2023]
#### Margaret Kearney, *as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v.*George H. Thompson and another, Appellants.—

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Smith, P.'J.
#### Same *v.*James Donovan, *Appellant*.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
MOTION DOCKET

98-81.

#### Cappara v. Schibley.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 71070, 71368 and 71399. On motion to strike portion of reply brief. Motion denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
Regarding Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
    
    Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the Company.
 Dated: August 3, 2006/s/ Michael C. Mayer
    
    /s/ Linda J. MilesMichael C. Mayer
    
    Linda J. MilesPresident & Chief Executive Officer
    
    Executive VP & Chief Financial Officer
 43
#### Lee Briscoe v. The State.

*No. 600.*

*Decided November 4.*

Unlawfully Carrying a Pistol—Evidence.—On a trial for unlawfully carrying a pistol, where the defense was, that defendant was returning the pistol to its owner, for whom he had repaired it, and the State was allowed to prove, over objection, that shortly before his arrest defendant had told an officer that a third party had his drum, and that he, the officer, would have him, defendant, to arrest before night, as he would do some dirt or get his drum; whereupon he walked away, and in a few minutes returned and the pistol was found upon his person: *He Id,*that the evidence was not obnoxious to the objections that it was irrelevant and not res gestee, and it was further admissible to rebut the defense interposed.

Appeal from the County Court of Fort Bend. Tried below before Hon. M. J. Hickey, County Judge.

Appellant was prosecuted, by information, for unlawfully carrying a pistol, was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of *$25.*

A statement of the facts is unnecessary.

No brief on file for appellant.

*JR. L.*Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol, in contravention of the statute.

The officer making the arrest of defendant was permitted to testify, over objection, that, shortly before said arrest defendant asked witness, “ if a man had the right to keep another’s property?” Upon receiving an answer in the negative, defendant stated, *“*that one Clarence had his, defendant’s, drum, and that he, witness, would have him, defendant, to arrest before night, as he would do some dirt, or get his drum. That defendant then walked away, and was gone some minutes. When he returned to where witness was he found a pistol on defendant.” The grounds of objection were, that it was irrelevant, not res gestae, and was calculated to injure defendant. The objections are not well taken, and were admissible to rebut the claim of defendant that he was returning the pistol to its owner, for whom he had repaired it. Defendant denied having the pistol at the time it was taken from him. He was also found with a bottle of whisky.

The evidence warranted the conviction. The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending January 14, 2012

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### § 178.1005 Flexible Bulk Container identification code.

The Flexible Bulk Container code designation is BK3.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.2

To Our Shareholders:

    On March 25, 1997 ESELCO, Inc. and Wisconsin Energy Corporation announced
that they had entered into a letter of intent, setting forth the preliminary
terms of the potential acquisition of ESELCO, Inc. by Wisconsin Energy
Corporation. All outstanding shares of ESELCO, Inc. common stock would be
converted into shares of Wisconsin Energy Corporation common stock based on a
value of $44.50 for each share of ESELCO, Inc. common stock in a transaction
proposed to be structured as a tax-free reorganization. The total purchase
price would be approximately $71 million. The exact number of shares of
Wisconsin Energy Corporation common stock to be issued in the transaction
would be determined by dividing $44.50 by the average closing prices of
Wisconsin Energy Corporation common stock during a specified period prior to
closing.

    Consummation of the proposed transaction is contingent upon several
conditions, including the negotiation and execution of a definitive
agreement, approval by the Boards of Directors of both companies and the
shareholders of ESELCO, Inc., receipt of all appropriate regulatory
approvals, and the effectiveness of a registration statement to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission covering the Wisconsin Energy
Corporation shares to be issued in the transaction. There can be no assurance
as to the final terms of the proposed transaction, that the conditions will
be satisfied, or that the proposed transaction will be consummated.

    Shareholders are not being asked to vote on the proposed transaction with
Wisconsin Energy Corporation at the annual meeting of shareholders, which
will occur on May 6, 1997. If the proposed transaction proceeds, shareholders
would be provided a proxy statement describing the terms of the proposed
transaction and would be asked to vote with respect to the proposed
transaction at a special meeting of shareholders.

                                    William R. Gregory
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 176.69 General stowage requirements for hazardous materials. ( a ) Hazardous materials (except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section and Class 9 (miscellaneous hazardous) materials) must be stowed in a manner that will facilitate inspection during the voyage, their removal from a potentially dangerous situation, and the removal of packages in case of fire.
( b ) Each package marked in accordance with § 172.312(a)(2) of this subchapter must be stowed as to remain in the position indicated during transportation.
( c ) If a vessel designed for and carrying hazardous materials in freight containers or a vessel designed for and carrying hazardous materials in barges is equipped with a fixed fire extinguishing and fire detection system, the freight containers or barges need not be stowed in the manner required by paragraph (a) of this section. When freight containers or barges containing hazardous materials are stowed on deck, they need not be stowed in the manner required by paragraph (a) of this section if fire fighting equipment capable of reaching and piercing the freight container or barge is on board the vessel.
( d ) Packages of hazardous materials must be secured and dunnaged to prevent shifting in any direction. Vertical restraints are not required if the shape of the package and the stuffing pattern preclude shifting of the load.
( e ) Packages of hazardous materials must be braced and dunnaged so that they are not likely to be pierced by the dunnage or crushed by a superimposed load.
[Amdt. 176-1, 41 FR 16110, Apr. 15, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 176-1A, 41 FR 40687, Sept. 20, 1976; Amdt. 176-12, 45 FR 81573, Dec. 11, 1980; Amdt. 176-30, 55 FR 52689, Dec. 21, 1990; 56 FR 66282, Dec. 20, 1991; 68 FR 61942, Oct. 30, 2003]
§ 175.700 Special limitations and requirements for Class 7 materials. ( a ) Except as provided in §§ 173.4a, 173.422 and 173.423 of this subchapter, no person may carry any Class 7 materials aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft unless that material is intended for use in, or incident to research (See § 171.8 of this subchapter), medical diagnosis or treatment. Regardless of its intended use, no person may carry a Type B(M) package aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft, a vented Type B(M) package aboard any aircraft, or a liquid pyrophoric Class 7 material aboard any aircraft.
( b ) *Limits for transport index and criticality safety index.* A person may carry the following Class 7 (radioactive) materials aboard an aircraft only when— ( 1 ) On a passenger-carrying aircraft— ( i ) Each single package on the aircraft has a transport index no greater than 3.0;
( ii ) The combined transport index and the combined criticality index of all the packages on the aircraft are each no greater than 50.
( 2 ) On a cargo aircraft— ( i ) Each single package on the aircraft has a transport index no greater than 10.0.
( ii ) The combined transport index of all the packages on the aircraft is no greater than 200, and the combined criticality index of all the packages on the aircraft is no greater than— ( A ) 50 on a non-exclusive use cargo aircraft, or
( B ) 100 on an aircraft assigned for the exclusive use of the shipper [offeror] for the specific shipment of fissile Class 7 material. Instructions for the exclusive use must be developed by the shipper [offeror] and carrier, and the instructions must accompany the shipping papers.
( 3 ) The combined transport index and combined criticality index are determined by adding together the transport index and criticality index numbers, respectively, shown on the labels of the individual packages.
( c ) No person may carry in a passenger-carrying aircraft any package required to be labeled RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-II or RADIOACTIVE YELLOW-III label unless the package is carried on the floor of the cargo compartment or freight container.
[71 FR 14604, Mar. 22, 2006, as amended at 74 FR 2268, Jan. 14, 2009]