alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.6





AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE IN CONTROL, CONFIDENTIALITY, AND NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT





This Amendment is made as of June 25,
2008 (the “Effective Date”) between Roger Tully (“Executive”), Greater Community
Bank (the “Bank”), a New Jersey banking corporation, and Greater Community
Bancorp (“GCB”), a New Jersey business corporation (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “the Company”).





RECITALS





WHEREAS, Executive and the Company are
parties to a Change in Control, Confidentiality, and Non-Compete Agreement (the
“Agreement”) dated November 13, 2007; and





WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend
the Agreement in order to comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A and the
applicable federal regulations thereto;





WHEREAS, GCB has entered into an
agreement and plan of merger with Valley National Bancorp ("Valley") dated March
19, 2008 pursuant to which GCB will merge into Valley (the "Merger");
and





WHEREAS, GCB and Valley wish to provide
a payment to Employee upon the Merger in satisfaction of Bank's obligations
under the Agreement.





NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as
follows:





1.           The
first sentence of Section 2(e) of the Agreement is replaced with the following
sentence:





(e)           Voluntary Termination After
Change in Control.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Agreement to the contrary, the Executive may voluntarily terminate his
employment under this Agreement by December 31 of the year in which a Change in
Control of GCB or the Bank occurs if “Good Reason” for such termination exists
that is not corrected within 30 days following written notice thereof to the
Company by the Executive, such notice to state with specificity the basis upon
which Good Reason exists and to be provided to the Company within 30 days from
the date of the change that constitutes Good Reason.





2.           The
following new paragraph is added to the end of Section 2(e) of the
Agreement:





It is intended that (A) each payment or
installment of payments provided under this Section 2 is a separate “payment”
for purposes of Code Section 409A and (B) that the payments satisfy, to the
greatest extent possible, the exemptions from the application







of Code
Section 409A, including those provided under Treasury Regulations 1.409A-1(b)(4)
(regarding short-term deferrals) and 1.409A-1(b)(9)(iii) (regarding the
two-times, two year exception).




3.           Upon
the merger of GCB into Valley, GCB shall pay Employee a lump sum payment of
$200,000.





4.           Upon
payment of the amount pursuant to Section 3 above, GCB and Valley shall have no
further obligations to Employee under the Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOFthe parties
have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.





EXECUTIVE
            GREATER
      COMMUNITY BANCORP/s/ Roger
      Tully
            By:
            /s/ Anthony M.
      BrunoRoger
      Tully
            
            Anthony
      M. BrunoExecutive
      Vice President,
            
            Chairman,
      President, andRisk
      and Operations
            
            Chief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

           In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Northeast
Indiana Bancorp, Inc., (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Stephen E. Zahn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

           (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of
                 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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.


By:        /s/ Stephen E. Zahn
           -------------------------------
Name:      Stephen E. Zahn
           Chief Executive Officer

March 26, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23193]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m. (EDT), September 8, 1997.

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room, 1250 H Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Approval of the minutes of the August 11, 1997, Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    3. Review of FY 1997 budget and projected expenditures, approval of 
FY 1998 proposed budget, and review of FY 1999 estimates.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Date: August 27, 1997.
Roger W. Mehle,
Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 97-23193 Filed 8-27-97; 11:19 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-M
255 La. 238

#### John A. PATRICK v. Elsie Moore PATRICK.

No. 50215.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1970.

In re: Elsie Moore Patrick applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Red River, State of Louisiana. 227 So.2d 162.

Writ refused. No error of law in the judgment complained of.
Order entered July 12 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00344
- CV
HELEN RYERSON , Appellant

V. THE CITY OF PLANO , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court a t Law No. 7

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007
- 02111
- 2020

O RDER City of Plano’s Notice of Urgent Circumstances and Request for Expedited Ruling on City of Plano’s Motion to Dismiss for Mootness is DENIED AS
MOOT

.
/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the prospectus
(the "Prospectus") constituting a part of the Registration Statement on Form
S-3, as amended (Registration No. 333-47577) filed by Queen Sand Resources,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, of information contained in our reserve report relating to the
proved oil and natural gas reserves and future net revenues of oil and natural
gas reserves of the Company as of June 30, 1998 with respect to the Morgan
Properties (as defined in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
June 30, 1998) and all references to such report letters and/or this firm in
such Prospectus.


                                                RYDER SCOTT COMPANY



September 21, 1998
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 30, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 30, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19A1066. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. RICHARD JONES, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF SARAH ELIZABETH JONES et al..
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1704 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1704

  To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the taking of property by 
                eminent domain for economic development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 14, 2005

  Mr. Dorgan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the taking of property by 
                eminent domain for economic development.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
              RELATING TO PROPERTY TAKEN BY EMINENT DOMAIN.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Private Property 
Protection Act of 2005''.
    (b) Prohibition.--
            (1) In general.--No Federal funds may be used relating to a 
        property that is the subject of a taking by eminent domain.
            (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the 
        property is being used for public use or a public purpose.
    (c) Public Use or Public Purpose.--Economic development, including 
an increase in the tax base, tax revenues, or employment, may not be 
the primary basis for establishing a public use or public purpose under 
subsection (b).
    (d) Takings for Use by Private Individual or Entity.--Subsection 
(b) shall include takings of private property for the use of, or 
ownership by, any private individual or entity.
                                 <all>
```
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50673 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. JESUS ENRIQUE ROMERO TALAMANTES, Defendant–Appellant.

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-947-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney a ppointed to repr e sent J esus Enrique Romero T alamantes (Romero) h as moved f or leave to withdraw and has f i l ed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Romero has file d a response. The r ecord is insufficiently developed to allow c onsideration at this time of R omero’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal w hen the claim has not been r aised before the district court since U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May22, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-50673 Document: 00512250861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2013No. 12-50673

no o pportunity existed to develop the record on the mer i t s of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 20 0 6 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). We h ave reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as R omero’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the a p p e a l presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for l eave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furth e r responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee 5 T H C I R
. R

. 4 2.2. Romero’s motion to proceed pro se, for extension of time, and to strike counsel’s brief is DENIED.

2 Case: 12-50673 Document: 00512250861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2013
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21837]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 12, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2034:
    1. Community Financial Corp., Olney, Illinois; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of MidAmerica Bank of St. Clair County, 
O'Fallon, Illinois.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-2171:
    1. Norwest Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of International Bancorporation, Golden 
Valley, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire Northern National 
Bank, International Falls, Minnesota; City National Bank of Cloquet, 
Cloquet, Minnesota, and Northern National Bank, Nisswa, Minnesota.
    In connection with this application, Applicant, through its 
subsidiary, Norwest Investment Services, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 
has applied to engage in full-service brokerage, government securities, 
and limited underwriting activities, pursuant to Secs.  225.28(b)(7) 
and (b)(8) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 13, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-21837 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
KRYSTAL LYNN COLLINS

,

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

- 5498

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Gary L. Bergosh , Judge

.

James R. Barnes of the Law Office of James R. Barnes, Pensacola , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR

, JAY

, and M.K. THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30920

Summary Calendar

 

JEAN VALETTE BERTHELOT,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES PREVENTIVE SERVICES

TASK FORCE; NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE;

UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE;

DEPARTMENT HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;

OFFICE OF DISEASE PREVENTION AND 

HEALTH PROMOTION; OFFICE OF PUBLIC 

HEALTH AND SCIENCE,

 Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-1854-K

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

February 4, 2002

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

JeanValetteBerthelot appealsthe district court’s dismissalof her civil complaint. The district

court relied in part upon res judicata to dismiss Berthelot’s current lawsuit. An action is barred by

the doctrine ofresjudicata if (1) the parties are identical or in privity with each other in both actions;

(2) the first judgment wasrendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;(3) the prior case ended with

a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action is involved in both suits.

Ellis v. Amex Life Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 935, 936 (5th Cir. 2000). “Cause of action” is defined to
2

include all claims that were or could have been brought in a prior action based on the same

transaction. See Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Miss., 701 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1983)(en banc).

Berthelot had previously filed a federal lawsuit against the same defendants named here,

alleging claims under theRacketeerInfluenced andCorrupt Organizations Act (RICO). These claims

arose fromthe defendants’ publicationofpurportedlyillegaland contradictory guidelinesfor ordering

mammograms. The lawsuit was dismissed because it was barred by the applicable limitations period.

The current lawsuit, against the same defendants, challenges the defendants’ continued publication

of the purportedly illegal guidelines and requests declaratory and injunctive relief, along with

monetary damages.

On appeal, Berthelot asserts that the two cases do not involve the same claim or cause of

action because the first lawsuit challenged the 1993 actions of the defendants, whereas the current

lawsuit involves the 2001 continued publication of improper guidelines. This assertion is frivolous.

The two federal lawsuits clearly arise out of a common nucleus of facts, and the current action is

barred by res judicata. As Berthelot has not raised a meritorious issue on appeal, the appeal is

frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. Berthelot’s motion to expedite the appeal is DENIED AS MOOT.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO EXPEDITE DENIED AS MOOT.
# Soracco recognized for achievements as commander of San Diego distribution center

/ Published May 11, 2017
SAN DIEGO, California,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL IRAHETA, AKA Danie Iraheta

Iraheta,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73405

Agency No. A026

- 763

- 474

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 11 , 201 9 **

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Iraheta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Our jurisdiction is gov erned by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73405

part the petition for review.

Iraheta does not raise, and therefore waives any challenge to, the agency’s

denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706

F.3d 1072, 107 9

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an

opening brief are waived)

. Because timeliness is dispositive, to the extent Iraheta

challenges the agency’s denial of reopening for failure to show prima facie

eligibility for cancellat ion of removal, we do not address that contention. See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) ( the courts and the agenc y

are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unneces sary to

the results )

.

To the extent Iraheta challenges the agency’s denials of asylum and related

relief and relief unde r the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act

in his previous deportation proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to consider those

contentions as this petition is untimely as to those decisions. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
254 La. 14

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. WILLIAM T. BURTON INDUSTRIES, INC.

No. 49810.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 9, 1969.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 219 So.2d 837.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.
## FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT APRI L27, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

11 t h C i r . R
. 36-1 pr ov i de s: 1 W h e n the c o u r t de te r m ine s tha t an y of the fo llow ing c ir c u m sta n c e s e x ist: (a) j ud gm en t of the dist r i ct cou r t i s base d on fi nd i ng s of fac t t ha t ar e n ot clear l y e r r on eo us; (b ) the e v ide n c e in su p p o r t of a jur y ve r d ic t i s su ff

ic ie n t; (c) t he or de r of an ad m i nist r ati ve ag en cy is sup po r t ed b y substan t i al e vide nc e on the r ec or d as a w ho l e; (d) sum m ar y j udgm ent , di r ect ed ver di ct , or j udgm ent on t he pl eadi ngs i s suppor t ed by t he r ecor d; (e) j udgm ent has been ent er ed w i t hout a r ever si bl e er r or of l aw ; a nd a n opini on w oul d have no pr ecedenti al val ue, t he j udgm ent or or der m ay be aff i r m ed or enfor ced w i t hout opi ni on.



## [DO NOT PUBLI SH]
INT H EU

N IT E D S T A T E S C O U RTO F A P P E A LS F O R T H EE LE V EN T HC IR C U IT

No. 03-13543
D
. C
. D o c k e tN o s . 0 2
- 8 0 4 8 4
- C V
- KLR &9 7
- 0 8 1 2 5 C R
- KLR UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , versus ELWOO D J. CO OPE R, De fend ant- Appe lla nt.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Souther

n District of F lorida (April 27, 2005) B e fo reB LAC K, MARCU S and F AY , Ci rcuit

Judg e s. PER CURIAM : AFF IRMED. See 11th Cir. R. 36-1. 1