alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10(i)(2)


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO

                        SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AGREEMENT (this
"Amendment") is made and entered into as of this _____ day of ________, 2001 by
and between Banknorth Group, Inc. (formerly known as Peoples Heritage Financial
Group, Inc. and hereinafter referred to as the "Company"), and ___________ (the
"Executive").

                                    RECITALS:

A.       The Company and the Executive are parties to a certain Supplemental
Retirement Agreement dated as of ____________ (the "Original Agreement"). The
Original Agreement, as amended by this Agreement is referred to as the
"Agreement."

B.       The Company and the Executive wish to amend the Original Agreement as
hereinafter set forth.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and
valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree and amend the Original Agreement as follows:

1.       AMENDMENT.   Section 2.04 of the Agreement is hereby amended by
deleting the second to last sentence of thereof in its entirety and replacing it
with the following: "In addition, the Executive may elect a lump sum under this
plan." The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that, if the Executive
elects lump sum payment, the



                                                                               1

<PAGE>   2



Company shall not have any right to require that payment be made over a period
of five years.

2.       NO FURTHER MODIFICATION. Except as expressly amended hereby, the
Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect.

3.       GOVERNING LAW. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Maine without regard to its conflicts
of laws principles.

4.       SEVERABILITY.   Each provision of this Amendment is intended to be
severable and the invalidity, illegality or unenforceability of any portion of
this Amendment shall not affect the validity, legality and enforceability of the
remainder.


                                                                               2


<PAGE>   3

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have caused this
Amendment to be executed as of the date and year first above written.

                                        BANKNORTH GROUP, INC. f/k/a
                                        PEOPLES HERITAGE FINANCIAL
                                        GROUP, INC.

                                        By:
----------------------------------      ----------------------------------------
Witness                                 Name:
                                        Title:

----------------------------------      ----------------------------------------
Witness


                                                                               3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 18 - 0335 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. DAVID MICHAEL YOUMANS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 22 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 15 2020

05/15/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0335
#### Frank J. Enz and Thomas G. Miller, *Respondents, v.*William J. Smith, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
JOHN E. BRATCHER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1007

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed June 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Hentz McClellan , Judge

.

John E. Bratcher, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CU RIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: 7/14 /14 TO: C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Michael Gordon , EPA Region 3 SUBJECT: 7/14 /2014 Meeting with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection Regarding Proposed C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A conference call was held between EPA and the Pennsy lvania Department of Environmental Protection on July 14, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plant s . The C lean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.
**ATTENDEES** Diana Esher , Air Protection Division Brian Rehn, Air Protection Division Mike Gordon , Air Protection Division Emily L inn, Air Protection Division Kevin Culligan, Office of Air Qualit y Planning and Standards Debra Dalcher, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards David Solomon, Office of Air Qualit y Planning and Standards Lora Strine, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Brian Fisher, Office of Atmospher ic Programs Joe Bry son, Office of Atmospheric Programs Jim Ketcham

- Colwill, Office of Policy Anal ys is and Review Denise Mulholland, Office of Atmospheric Programs Joyce Epps , PADEP Robert Reiley , PADEP Krish Ramamurthy , PADEP Craig Evans , PADEP Sean Wenri ch , PADEP Charles Boritz , PADEP Robert Cook , PADEP Mark Brojakowski , PADEP Joe Sherrick , PADEP
§ 1312.3 Tariff contents and standards; Essential criteria. ( a ) *Contents.* Tariffs filed with the Board, including tariffs published, filed, and kept electronically in accordance with § 1312.4(b), must: Be filed in English; include an accurate description of the services offered to the public; provide the specific applicable rates explicitly stated in U.S. dollars and cents (or the basis for calculating the specific applicable rates) and service terms; and be arranged in a way that allows for the determination of the exact rate(s) and service terms applicable to any given shipment (or to any given group of shipments). Tariffs that are electronically kept on the internet must also provide the date on which a new tariff or any change in any tariff matter first appears on the internet and the date on which it becomes effective.
( b ) *Use of multiple tariffs.* All information necessary to determine applicable rates and service terms for a given shipment need not be contained in a single tariff, but if multiple tariffs are used to convey that information, the tariff containing the rates must make specific reference (by STB tariff designation) to all other tariffs required to determine applicable rates and service terms, and the carrier(s) party to the rates must participate in all of the tariffs so linked.
( c ) *Clarity.* Tariff information must be presented in a way that facilitates the determination of the prices and services offered, and the related service terms. Ambiguous terms and complex methods of presentation shall not be used.
( d ) *Explanations.* Reference marks and abbreviations, other than commonly used abbreviations, shall be explained either in the item in which they are used or in a separate item.
[62 FR 19058, Apr. 18, 1997, as amended at 84 FR 20295, May 9, 2019]
#### Buzzell *v.*The State.

A new trial may bo granted in a criminal case, on the defendant’s petition, presented after judgment of conviction, when justice has not been done, through accident, mistake, or misfortune, and a further hearing would be equitable.

Petition for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, in a capital case. The petition was presented at the second trial term after judgment; and all questions of law and fact were reserved.

*Copeland*Edgerly, for the petitioner.

*The Attorney-General*and Solicitor, for the state.

Doe, C. J.

“A new trial may be granted in any case where a review may not be had of right, when justice has not been done, through accident, mistake, or misfortune, and a further hearing would be equitable.” G. L., *c.*234, s. 1. Some of the provisions of this chapter may not be applicable to criminal cases; and the whole chapter was probably intended for civil cases only. But the ground on which it allows a new trial may properly be adopted as a general rule of procedure on petition for new trial after judgment in criminal cases. If a new trial were granted in this case, it would be necessary to vacate, suspend, or modify the judgment, because the day of execution, appointed by it, is prior to the next trial term. Such disposition would be made of the judgment as would give effect to the grant of a new trial. Elementary principle and immemorial practice require such judicial control, regulation, and improvement of common law remedies and methods of procedure as experience shows to be necessary for the easy ascertainment and protection of legal rights. 3 Bl. Com. 389-393. A convict is entitled to a new trial when it appears that, by reason of accident, mistake, or misfortune, justice has not been done, and that a further hearing is equitable. And when a new trial is granted, he is entitled to such reversal, suspension, or modification of the judgment as the result- of the new trial demands. There is no judicial disability to correct judicial errors, sending him to the executive for a pardon of a crime of which he is innocent. *State*v. Prescott, 7 N. H. 287, 288.

Ordinarily a question of fact, like that raised in this case, is not decided at the law term. *Brooks*v. Howard, 58 N. H. 91. But the rule has been waived in favor of the convict, on his petition in this capital case. All the evidence, old and new, has been received; and a careful consideration of it leaves us in no doubt of his guilt of the crime of which lie has been convicted. The proof is clear *62and conclusive. On a former indictment, charging him as a principal, the jury found him not guilty. On the indictment in this case, charging him as an accessory before the fact, the jury found him guilty. In neither of these concordant verdicts are we able to find any error of law or of fact. It does not appear that injustice has been done, or that a new trial would be equitable.

*Petition denied.*

Foster and Clark, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60815 Summary Calendar

**Mijanur Rahman Chowdhury,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,**
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A203 718 932

Before **R ichman,**  Chief Judge **,** and **Duncan** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges.

**Per Curiam :**  *
Mijanur Rahman Chowdhury petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum stances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 23, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60815 Document: 00516483246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2022No. 21

- 60815

2 of removal, and protection under the Conven tion Against Torture (CAT). Chowdhury challenges the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, which he contends was erroneously based on minor discrepancies, omissions, and translation errors in his parents’ affidavits. We generally review only the

BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s ruling influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).

T he BIA provided “ specific and cogent reasons derived from the
record ” to support the adverse credibility finding

. Z hang v. Gonzales , 432
F.3d 339, 34 4 (5th Cir. 2005)

. Chowdhury has failed to demonstrate that it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that no reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility ruling in his case

. See Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 538

- 40 (5th Cir. 2009)

. Without credible evidence, there was no basis for the BIA to grant asylum or withholding of removal. See Arulnanthy
v. Garland , 17 F.4th 586, 597 (5th Cir. 2021); Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994) . Additionally, we lack jurisdiction over Chowdhury’s
unexhausted CAT claim

. See Martinez

- Guevara v. Garland , 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022).
Accordingly, the petition for review is **DENIED IN PART**  and

**DISMISSED IN PART**  for lack of jurisdiction . Retained counsel’s
motion to withdraw is **DENIED** as unnecessary. Case: 21-60815 Document: 00516483246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2022
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, FASD-Related Application Review.                    

*Date:*                         August 15, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To Review and Evaluate Grant Applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Katrina L. Foster, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Inst on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm. 3037, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-3037,                         *katrina@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 23, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-3685 Filed 7-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[FR Doc. 07-3163 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-C
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Summary of Public Input from two listening-session meetings on March 10, 

2011 regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s Implementation of 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

FROM: Lawrence Grandison, Director Office of Communication & Public 

Involvement, EPA, Region 8

TO: Public Docket EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156 for Improving Regulations: General

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is beginning a new periodic 

retrospective review of our existing significant regulations, to determine whether any such 

regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, so as to make the Agency’s 

regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory

objectives. 

As called for by President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic 

review of existing significant regulations," EPA will "consider how best to promote retrospective 

analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and 

to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned." 

As part of this effort, EPA convened public meetings to gather input on how we might 

design the plan we will use to periodically review our regulations. This Memo transmits to the 

docket a summary of the input received from public stakeholders at two separate meetings – one 

with members of the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (CACI) and the other with 

the Colorado Environmental Coalition held on March 10, 2011 (at different times) at the CACI

offices and at the Alliance Center in downtown Denver, respectively.

Each session was "hosted" by the individual interest groups, with Regional Administrator 

Jim Martin as the primary facilitator for each. Jim opened each session with a brief description 

of the purpose for the sessions and then began accepting comments which were noted in the 

documents submitted in tandem with this memo. The sessions lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. 

There were no break-out sessions.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0973 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-139-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2013-0163

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
§ 67.111 Assignment of official number. ( a ) The owner of a vessel must submit an Application for Initial Issue, Exchange, or Replacement of Certificate of Documentation; or Redocumentation (form CG-1258) to the Director, National Vessel Documentation Center, to apply for an official number for the vessel when: ( 1 ) Application is made for initial documentation of the vessel; or
( 2 ) An existing vessel has been severed, with two or more vessels resulting. In this case, the official number of the original vessel is retired and the owner of each resulting vessel must apply for designation of a new official number.
( b ) Upon receipt of form CG-1258, the Director, National Vessel Documentation Center will have an official number assigned to the vessel and furnish it to the vessel owner.
[CGD 89-007, CGD 89-007a, 58 FR 60266, Nov. 15, 1993, 58 FR 65131, Dec. 13, 1993, as amended by CGD 95-014, 60 FR 31604, June 15, 1995; USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52190, Sept. 30, 1998]
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: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending August 7, 2010

|Filer                                   | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                | End of Comment Period                                  
|--------------------------------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|FIA CARD SERVICES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Investment     | Bank of America, N.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, and FIA Card Services, N.A., Wilmington, Deleware, to make an indirect investment of $27.9 million in Loans.co.uk Limited, Chester, England. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                              | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                       | Not applicable

## 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
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, June 15, 1995 (80), Para 80.22 Time Limitation of Referred Bill]
[Page 1008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.80.22  time limitation of referred bill

  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the 
Speaker:

       H.R. 70. Referral to the Committee on International 
     Relations extended for a period ending not later than June 
     15, 1995.
```
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET

98-2266.

#### In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Elizabeth Burick.

Statement of Costs and Instructions Regarding Payment of Monetary Sanctions.
#### Charles Rothschild and others, *Respondents, v.*Charles Werner and others, *Appellants.*

— Judgment affirmed.