alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Amendment of the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Non-Qualified Retirement Plan



 
Exhibit 10.19

 
FOURTH
AMENDMENT 
OF THE

SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
NON-QUALIFIED RETIREMENT PLAN 
(As Amended
and Restated Effective January 1, 1999) 
 
WHEREAS, Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Non-Qualified Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) for a select group of its management and
highly compensated employees; 
 
WHEREAS, the Company has delegated authority to amend the Plan to the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”), and the Committee has determined that amendment
of the Plan is necessary and desirable. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power reserved to the Committee by Section 8.1 of the Plan, and by virtue of the authority delegated to the undersigned by resolution of the Committee, the Plan, as
previously amended, be and is hereby amended further, effective as of April 1, 2002, in the following particulars: 
 
1. By substituting the following for Section 1.14 of the Plan: 
 
“1.14. ‘Director’ means an individual who is a member of the Board, a member
of the board of directors of an Affiliated Company, or a ‘Regional Board’ member.” 
 
2. By substituting the following for the second sentence of Section 2.3 of the Plan: 
 
“A Participant’s Compensation Deferral Agreement for
any Plan Year must be in writing, signed by the Participant, and delivered to the Committee prior to January 1 of that Plan Year; except that, in the year in which an Eligible Employee or Director first becomes eligible to participate in the Plan
(i.e., due to hire or promotion), such Eligible Employee or Director may execute a Compensation Deferral Agreement, no later than 30 days after such initial eligibility, to defer Compensation for services to be performed subsequent to the
election.” 
 









 
3. By adding
the following new Section 2.13 to the Plan immediately after Section 2.12 thereof: 
 
“2.13. Company Contributions for Mid-Year Entrants. For purposes of determining the Company contributions
provided for under Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 above, the ‘Compensation’ of an Eligible Employee or Director for the Plan Year in which he or she first becomes eligible to participate in the Plan (i.e., due to hire, promotion or
designation by the Committee), shall only include the Salary, Bonus, Director’s Fees or Director’s Retainer payable to such person on and after the first day that he or she first became an Eligible Employee or Director in that Plan
Year.” 
 
*        *        * 
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on behalf of the Committee, the undersigned Committee member has
executed this amendment this 8th day of May 2002. 
 

	 SKY FINANCIAL GROUP,
INC.
 BENEFIT PLANS
COMMITTEE

	
	 By:
	 	

	 	 	 A Member of the Committee
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Barry Willie FORBES, Appellee.

No. 69-890.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 12, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Paul Pollack, and Nathaniel L. Barone, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, the State seeks review of a pre-trial order granting a motion to suppress an alleged voluntary confession. The *318facts in this case are similar to those outlined in State v. Pressley, Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 734.

Upon the aforesaid authority, the order here under review is hereby reversed and declared a nullity, and the parties are relegated to the positions in the trial court that they occupied immediately prior to the entry of the order here under review, and the cause and the appellant are remanded for further proceedings in the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Dade County, Florida.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
EXHIBIT 99
                           ==========

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Natalma Industries, Inc.
(Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Derick Sinclair, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

   (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 results of
        operations of Registrant.


Date: August 10, 2003          /s/ Derick Sinclair
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                              Chief Financial Officer of
                              Natalma Industries, Inc., Registrant
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Short Duration Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| July 1, 2009 | /s/Michael G. Clark                                    |
|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|         | Michael G. Clark                                       |
|         | President                                              |
|         | DWS Short Duration Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |

 

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Short Duration Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| July 1, 2009 | /s/Paul Schubert                                       |
|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|         | Paul Schubert                                          |
|         | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                  |
|         | DWS Short Duration Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |
#### PLAYCARE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph BATTAGLIA, Appellee.

No. 72-904.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 6, 1973.

John L. O’Brien, of Clarke, O’Brien & Wutt, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

George E. Adams, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of a summary judgment entered in plaintiff-appellee’s favor in a suit for foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.

The pleadings, affidavits and counter-affidavits reveal there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. Specifically, defendant admits an oral contract for extras, but the question is raised whether the defendant-appellant had, in fact, paid others directly for the extras so as to offset the total amount due to plaintiff. Since fact issues exist, summary judgment was prematurely entered and we, therefore, reverse and remand for proceedings consistent herewith. Rule 1.-510(c), F.R.C.P., 31 F.S.A.; Graham v. First Marion Bank, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 793.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.52


                       FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AND
                           OEM MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT


         The License and OEM Manufacturing Agreement ("LOEMMA") with an
effective date of July 1, 2002, by and among EchoStar Satellite Corporation,
EchoStar Technologies Corporation and Thomson multimedia Inc. is hereby amended
as follows:

         1.   Section 11.16 is amended to read:

         The Parties shall mutually agree to a trademark agreement (the
         "Trademark Agreement") to be attached as Exhibit E hereto on or before
         October 18, 2002.

         2.   Unless specifically defined herein, all defined terms will have
              the meaning ascribed to such terms in the LOEMMA. The LOEMMA shall
              remain in all other respects unchanged.



EchoStar Satellite Corporation              EchoStar Technologies Corporation

By:                                         By:
       ---------------------------                 -----------------------------

Title:                                      Title:
       ---------------------------                 -----------------------------

Date:                                       Date:
       ---------------------------                 -----------------------------


Thomson multimedia Inc.

By:
       ---------------------------

Title:
       ---------------------------

Date:
       ---------------------------
#### Marshall TILLMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-899.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Engel & Halpern, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Alan M. Medof, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Miller v. State, 246 So.2d 169, 3 D.C.A., opinion filed April 6, 1971; Harrison v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 427; Buttler v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 313; and Rhome v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 431.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo20844 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Exhibit (4)(b)(vi)



 
Exhibit (4)(b)(vi)

 
GE LIFE AND ANNUITY ASSURANCE COMPANY

ANNUITY COMMENCEMENT DATE ENDORSEMENT 
 

 
The
Contract to which this endorsement is attached is amended by deleting The Annuity Commencement Date definition in the Definitions section and replacing it with the following: 
 
ANNUITY COMMENCEMENT DATE — The date stated on the Contract data pages on which Income Payments are scheduled to
commence, if the Annuitant(s) is living on that date. This date cannot be changed after issue, but may be deferred for one year by sending us written notice not more than 90 days and not less than 30 days before the Annuity Commencement Date. If you
defer the Annuity Commencement Date in this manner, the Annuity Commencement Date will then be the new Annuity Commencement Date you selected. 
 
You may continue to defer the Annuity Commencement Date, for one year at a time, by sending us written notice each year within the time period provided. The Annuity
Commencement Date cannot be deferred to a date later than the Contract Anniversary on which the Annuitant, or younger of the Annuitant and Joint Annuitant, reaches age 90, unless we approve a later date. 
 
For GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company, 
 
/s/    PAMELA S.
SCHUTZ 
Pamela S. Schutz 
        President
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00055

- CR

Roger Dale Medford

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (0584735D )

November 12, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affi rmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
C_

dep---westvirginiadepartmentofenvironmentalprotectionExecutiveOfficeJoeManchinIII.Governor60157thStreetSERandyC.Huffman,CabinetSecretaryCharleston,WV25304ww.wvdep.orgPhone:(304)926-0440Fax:(304)926-0446May21,2008Mr.DonaldS.WelshRegionalAdministratorU.S.EPA,RegionIII(3RAOO)1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PA19103-2029Re:FinalWestVirginiaStateimplementationPlanRevisiontoMeetObligationsUnderCleanAirActSection110(a)(2)(A)-(M)forthe8-HourOzoneandPM25NAAQSDearAdministratorWelsh:OnbehalfoftheStateofWestVirginia,IamhereinsubmittingarevisiontotheStateImplementationPlan(SIP)tosatisfystateobligationsundertheCleanAirAct(CAA)Section110(a)(2)(A)-(M)forthe8-HourOzoneandPM2.5NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS).TheSIPrevisionincludesappropriatedocumentationwhichdemonstratesthatstateandfederaladministrativeproceduralrequirementshavebeenfulfilled,includingpublicnotice.ThisSIPrevisionaddressesthoserequirementsofSection110(a)(2)(A)-(M)oftheCAAthathavenotbeenaddressedinotherSIPrevisions.Itisacompilationofcertainelementsthatdemonstratehowtheeight-hourozoneandfineparticulateNAAQSarebeingimplemented,maintainedandenforcedinWestVirginia.TheelementsofthisSIPrevisionprovideafederallyenforceablewrittenconfirmationofhowWestVirginiawillcontinuetocomplywiththeSection1l0(a)(2)requirementsoftheCAA.Promotingahealthyenvironment.CDonaldS.WelshPage2May21,2008Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthissubmittal,orrequireadditionalinformation,pleasecontactJohnA.Benedict,DirectoroftheDivisionofAirQuality,at(304)926-0462.Sincerely,RandyC.HuffmanCabinetSecretaryRCH/jimEnclosure
#### Charles LINDSEY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-400.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 23, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT WARDRICK 

Plaintiff,

v.

ASSOCIATE WARDEN S.L.

ROBARE, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civ. A. No. 06-186 Erie

District Judge McLaughlin 

Magistrate Judge Baxter

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

[Document # 1] be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

II. REPORT

When submitting a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Plaintiff is required to submit

“an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable

to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition to the aforementioned affidavit, Plaintiff is further required to “submit a certified copy of the trust fund account

statement(orinstitutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding

the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison

at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to submit a copy of his institutional account statement,

certified or otherwise. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for

proceeding In Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis should be denied

and the case dismissed without prejudice.

Case 1:06-cv-00186-SJM-SPB Document 2 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 2
2

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that the Plaintiff’s Motion

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Document # 1] be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule

72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of

service to file objections to this report and recommendation. Any party opposing the objections

shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file

timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 23, 2006

cc: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00186-SJM-SPB Document 2 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the 6/30/00 Form 10-Q/A2 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          7,743
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              378,787
<PP&E>                                         15,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                390,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         477,813
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      185,377
<OTHER-SE>                                  (435,381)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  390,309
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 677,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            122,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (800,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (800,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                (800,357)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.04)


</TABLE>
#### ZAYRE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Petitioner, v. Ronald SILVIA, Respondent.

No. 39704.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 233 So.2d 856.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### William Stephen Shirley HARRISON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49999.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 30, 1977.

Moore, Epps & Selph, Julie Ann Epps, Jackson, Mitchell M. Lundy, Grenada, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Scherry J. LeSieur, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grenada County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

Before INZER, P. J., and WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED AS TO CONVICTION BUT REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
#### David L. VAN DEVANDER et al., Appellants, v. Emil L. KNESNIK, for Use and Benefit of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1507.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

Joel R. Teague, Coral Gables, Edmond Frank and Don Lacy, Miami, for appellants.

Strauss & McCormick and Ronald B. Gilbert, Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kim-brell, Hamann & Jennings and B. Hume Morris, II, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

This action was by Emil L. Knesnik for use and benefit of his Insurer Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, to recover for property damage and loss of use of Knes-nik’s automobile for a period resulting from an automobile accident. The action was filed against Berney D. Avchen and his insurer Government Employees Insurance Company, David L. Van Devander and his employer Dumar Corporation and the latter’s insurer The Travelers Indemnity Company. Certain evidence was presented of payment having been made to Knesnik by his insurer, as the basis for the subrogation claim by the latter.

Avchen was a customer at a restaurant where valet parking of his automobile was made by Van Devander. When the parked vehicle was being returned to Avchen by Van Devander it was involved in a collision with Knesnik’s automobile. On trial of the cause without a jury the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against Van Devander, Dumar Corporation and the latter’s insurer, in the amount of $1,587.66 plus costs to be later taxed. Recovery was denied as to the defendants Avchen and his insurer, and judgment was entered in favor of those defendants.

This appeal was filed by the defendants against whom judgment was entered, Van Devander, Dumar Corporation and The Travelers Indemnity Company. The several contentions presented by the appellants have been considered in the light of the record, briefs and argument, and are found to be without merit, except appellants’ contention relating to the amount of the costs charged against them.

The successful defendants moved for and were granted judgment against the plaintiff for their costs in the amount of $104.60.

As basis for the cost judgment against the unsuccessful defendants, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff listing *58costs in the aggregate amount of $257.64. In the separate cost judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, against the unsuccessful defendants Van Devander and The Travelers Indemnity *Company, the*trial court included the amount of $104.60 which had been allowed as a cost judgment against the plaintiff in favor of the other defendants.

The appellant contends, and we agree, that the costs awarded to the successful defendants against the plaintiff could not properly be added to the costs claimed against the unsuccessful defendants and charged against them in a cost judgment. See 20 C.J.S. Costs § 113. Accordingly, the cost judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff against the unsuccessful defendants is hereby amended by reducing the amount thereof to $257.64.

As so amended the judgment is affirmed.