alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ADDENDUM TO THE CHANGE-IN-CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


This Addendum to the Change-in-Control Severance Agreement is made and entered into between Norwood Financial Corp. (the "Company"), Wayne Bank ("Bank") and Robert J. Mancuso (the "Executive") as of this 16th day of January, 2018.


WHEREAS, the Company, the Bank and the Executive have previously entered into a Change-in-Control Severance Agreement, dated January 23, 2013 (the "Agreement"), providing for the payment of severance benefits to the Executive in the event of a change-in-control of the Company and the Bank; and


WHEREAS, The Agreement is scheduled to expire on January 23, 2018, and the parties desire to extend the term of the Agreement for a new five year period; and


WHEREAS, Section 13 of the Agreement provides that amendments to the Agreement may be made in writing and signed by all parties,


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged:


1. Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended by the inclusion of the following sentence at the end of Section 5, as follows:


"Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Term of this Agreement shall be extended for the period from January 23, 2018 through January 23, 2023, except as may be extended beyond that date by future action of the parties."


2. The first sentence of Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety, as follows:


"If the Employee becomes entitled to collect severance benefits pursuant to Section 2 hereof, the Employee shall receive from the Bank an amount equal to two times the base salary as of the employee's date of hire and subsequently as of the last date of the prior calendar year preceding the Change in Control, but in no event more than Code §280G Maximum."


3. Except as set forth herein, such Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as in effect as of the date of this Addendum.





















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands as of the date first hereinabove written.







	 	
Wayne Bank


	 	 	 	 
	 	
By:

	 	
/s/ Lewis J. Critelli


	 	 	 	
Lewis J. Criteli


	 	
Its:

	 	
President and Chief Executive Officer


	 	 	 	 
	 	
Norwood Financial Corp.


	 	 	 	 
	 	
By:

	 	
/s/ Lewis J. Critelli


	 	 	 	
Lewis J. Critelli


	 	
Its:

	 	
President and Chief Executive Officer


	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
/s/ Robert J. Mancuso


	 	 	 	
Robert J. Mancuso


	 	 	 	
Executive Vice President and


	 	 	 	
Chief Operating Officer
#### FARM STORES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant, v. SALES RESEARCH CORPORATION and Frank McIntosh, Appellees.

No. 70-618.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Frank H. BUCHANAN and Marie Tonsla Buchanan, his wife, Petitioners, v. Areta E. CLINTON et al., Respondents.

No. S-183.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied.
**Client: Anamar Location:** 

**Project: Jacksonville Habitat: Estuarine**  

### Sample Date: September 2010

**FAUNAL PARAMETERS**

**Mean No. of Tax** **a Mean**  **H' d**  **1/S J'**  **D**

**Date Total No.** **No. of Tax a** **per Repl. Total No.** **Density Density** **Shannon Diversity** **Simpson Pielou** **Margalef e**  **Station (m/d/y)**  **Tax a** **per Repl. (Std Dev)** **Individuals (nos/m2)** **(Std Dev) (log e)** **(log 2) Diversity** **Evenness Richness** **Equitability**

**N01** 9/22/2014 66 31.0 9.0 277 4014.3 2218.7 3.31 4.77 15.06 0.79 11.56 0.61 **N02** 9/22/2014 100 53.7 13.4 665 9637.7 2717.7 3.48 5.02 13.67 0.76 15.23 0.48 **N03** 9/22/2014 45 25.0 4.4 371 5376.7 954.0 2.52 3.63 5.34 0.66 7.44 0.39 **N04** 9/22/2014 91 42.3 7.4 347 5029.0 1047.5 3.79 5.47 27.83 0.84 15.39 0.74 **N06** 9/22/2014 111 58.0 3.6 630 9130.3 115.3 3.61 5.20 12.26 0.77 17.07 0.50 **N07** 9/22/2014 106 53.3 0.6 569 8246.7 2032.3 3.39 4.90 10.32 0.73 16.55 0.42 **N08** 9/22/2014 98 51.3 9.5 562 8144.7 2292.7 3.73 5.38 21.43 0.81 15.32 0.64 **N09** 9/22/2014 97 52.0 7.0 534 7739.3 501.4 3.81 5.49 28.57 0.83 15.29 0.70 **S01** 9/22/2014 67 37.3 1.2 327 4739.0 568.4 3.53 5.10 20.40 0.84 11.40 0.76 **S02** 9/22/2014 123 58.7 27.1 648 9391.3 5725.9 4.02 5.80 33.76 0.83 18.84 0.69 **S03** 9/22/2014 95 52.3 3.5 710 10290.03441.5 3.38 4.88 13.23 0.74 14.32 0.46 **S04** 9/22/2014 100 50.3 9.7 524 7594.3 413.2 3.59 5.18 19.23 0.78 15.81 0.54 **S05** 9/22/2014 62 27.7 10.8 247 3579.7 2523.5 3.43 4.96 18.44 0.83 11.07 0.75 **S08** 9/22/2014 78 39.7 9.7 344 4985.3 1998.2 3.58 5.16 20.36 0.82 13.18 0.69 **S06** 9/22/2014 82 45.0 9.2 548 7942.0 1803.8 3.43 4.94 16.89 0.78 12.84 0.56 **S07** 9/22/2014 61 29.3 9.3 250 3623.3 1692.9 3.36 4.85 17.70 0.82 10.87 0.71 **S12** 9/22/2014 66 32.3 9.2 328 4753.3 1344.5 3.45 4.98 20.06 0.82 11.22 0.71 **S13** 9/22/2014 66 36.7 8.1 314 4550.7 2196.6 3.22 4.65 11.30 0.77 11.31 0.56 

### SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY PARAMETERS
Exhibit 99.2
 Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
 AdditionsBalance at
    
    
    Charged to Costs
    
    
    Charged to Other
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Balance at End ofBeginning of Year
    
    
    and Expenses
    
    
    Accounts
    
    
    Deductions
    
    
    Year(in thousands)Year Ended December 31, 2007Allowance for doubtful accounts
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    38
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    38Year Ended December 31, 2008Allowance for doubtful accounts
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    71
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (20
    )
    
    
    89Year Ended December 31, 2009Allowance for doubtful accounts
    
    
    89
    
    
    
    164
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (179
    )
    
    
    74
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3066

___________

John P. Williams III, as Trustee of the *

Phillip A. Taylor Revocable Living *

Trust; John P. Williams III, as Personal *

Representative of (Florida) Estate of *

Phillip Allan Taylor, *

 *

Appellants, *

 *

Jane Doe, as surviving mother of *

Appeal from the United States

Phillip A. Taylor, *

District Court for the 

 *

Eastern District of Missouri.

Plaintiff, *

 *

[UNPUBLISHED]

v. *

 *

J. William Campbell, M.D.; Barnes *

Hospital; Washington University; *

Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Inc., *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: November 5, 1997

 Filed: December 10,

1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

1

District of Missouri.

-2-

John P. Williams III, personal representative for the

Florida estate of Phillip A. Taylor, appeals the district

court&s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

1

dismissal of Williams&s complaint against J. William

Campbell, M.D., Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and Washington

University; Williams also appeals the denial of his

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) motions.

After de novo review, see County of St. Charles v.

Missouri Family Health Council, 107 F.3d 682, 684 (8th

Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 160 (1997), we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of

Williams&s Rule 59(e) and 60(b) motions. See Twin City

Constr. Co. v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians,

911 F.2d 137, 139 (8th Cir. 1990) (Rule 59(e) standard of

review); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th

Cir. 1988) (Rule 60(b) standard of review). See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20586 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT FRANKLIN SCHOONOVER, JR., also known as Robert Aaron Cord, also known as Robert Cord, also known as Robert Nabors, also known as Robert Aaron Nabors, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-101-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert Franklin Schoonover, Jr., on appeal from the revocation of his supervised release has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as is required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Schoonover has not responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’sNo. 05-20586 -2- motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 10-K/A(Amendment No. 1)
  þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
 or
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from          to
 Commission file number: 001-34551
 Global Defense Technology & Systems, Inc.
  Delaware(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation or organization)
    
    20-4477465(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)1501 Farm Credit Drive, Suite 2300McLean, VA
    
    22102-5011(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code:
703-738-2840
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 Title of Class
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredCommon Stock $0.01 par value per share
    
    Nasdaq Stock Market
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
 o þ
 o þ
 þ o
 o o
 o
  Large accelerated filer o
Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer o(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company þ o þ
   DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE




---



##### 



SIGNATURE
  Date: August 6, 2010
    Global Defense Technology &
Systems, Inc./s/ John HillenJohn HillenChief Executive Officer, President
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### John P. Capelle, Appellant, *vs.*Samuel S. Brainard, Respondent.

X. Practice, *civil*— Súfreme *Court*— Evidence, *weight of.*— In a law case, this Court will not decide upon the weight of the evidence, when there was evidence on both sides.

*Error to St. Louis Qirouit Court.*

*H.*Berry, for Appellant.

*Horatio E.*Wood, for Respondent.

No question of law having been raised, this case cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. (Wielandy vs. Lemuel, 47 Mo., 322; Gradalph vs. Pink, 47 Mo., 291.)

Yories, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought in the St. Louis Circuit Court, to recover the amount of three judgments, rendered before a Jusdee of the Peace. The defense was, that the judgments had oeen paid and satisfied by the defendant. The evidence btrongly tended to sustain the defendants answer. No objections were taken to any of the evidence by the appellant on the trial. The case was tried by the Court by the consent of parties; no instructions were asked, or given. The Court-rendered a judgment for the defendant. The appellant appealed to General Term, and from which an appeal was taken to this Court.

The record in this case presents nothing for the consideration of this Court, no exceptions having been saved, on the trial, to the rulings of the Circuit Court; the single exception saved is to the action of the Court in overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial, which can only authorize this Court, under the records in the cause, to decide as to the weight of the evidence given upon the trial of the case in the Circuit Court. This Court has uniformly refused to decide as to the weight of the evidence, where there was evidence on both sides. (Wielandy vs. Lemuel, 47 Mo., 322 ; Gradalph vs. Fink, 47 Mo., 291.)

There was evidence in this case, which strongly, if not con*480clusively, tended to prove the defendant’s answer, and the finding was for the defendant, which will not be disturbed by tbis Court.

The other Judges concurring,

the Judgment of the Circuit Court will he affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 96-10177

_______________________

WADE H. ENGLISH and

DOUGLAS A. WIREMAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

ASHLAND CHEMICAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:92-CV-2421-BC)

_________________________________________________________________

December 27, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this hard-fought and well-tried Title VII case, there

was a material fact question whether the plaintiffs were discharged

because of their race. The jury answered that question in the

affirmative, apparently resolving ambiguities and credibility

choices against Ashland. We cannot say that no reasonable jury

could have so found. Ashland’s complaint about the district
2

court’s conditional grant of a new trial is therefore moot.

Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

handling of evidentiary issues.

Based on our review of the briefs, the excellent

arguments of counsel, and pertinent portions of the record, the

judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### Richard Earl GOURLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-721.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1973.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Norman J. Kapner, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On petition for writ of habeas corpus we granted petitioner delayed appellate review of his conviction and sentence on the charge of first degree murder. Having now considered the briefs and record, we find no error, and therefore affirm the judgment and sentence and deny the writ.

WALDEN, CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ„ concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.6
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Thomas G. SategnaThomas G. SategnaVice President,
Controller and Treasurer
Texas-New Mexico Power Company
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-1024

 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-140-AD

8-57-47 --- 3/16/12

MTC 5730/04B --- 2/6/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jack NAPOLI, Jr., a Deceased minor by and through his mother and father as legal guardians, Ruth Napoli and Jack Napoli, Sr., Appellees.

No. 72-1217.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 19, 1973.

Edna L. Caruso, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

David R. Howland, of Kates, Ress, Gomez & Rosenberg, North Miami, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Weathers v. Mission Insurance Company, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 277.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Jack V. Chambers, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Texas-New Mexico Power Company; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986] 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and as presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and; 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 3, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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 the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: April 13, 2018 | By:    | /s/ MATTHEW T. PLAVAN                                  |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Matthew T. Plavan                                      |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer) |
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 0& 

269) ll-K-(I)-J " 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:57 AM Sheet 269 of 325 
P.2 

II-K-(B)-86 

COMPLIANCE MONITORING COSTS FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL BOILERS 

IN IFCAM. 

Letter from P. Johnson, EEA to R. Short, EPA:EAB. 

April 27, 1982. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-86
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

****The Board of Directors

The Madison Square Garden Company: 

****We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-164597) on Form S-8 of The Madison Square Garden Company of our report dated August 26, 2011, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of The Madison Square Garden Company as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income(loss) for the six-month period ended June 30, 2011 and for the each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the related consolidated financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of June 30, 2011, which report appears in the June 30, 2011 transition report on Form 10-K/T of The Madison Square Garden Company. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

****New York, New York 

August 26, 2011