alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Texas-New Mexico Power Company (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack V. Chambers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(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 

 

/s/ Jack V. Chambers 

 

Jack V. Chambers 

Chief Executive Officer 

May 14, 2003
Exhibit 10.10


 


EXECUTION COPY


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE


DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


WITH DEAN H. HESS


 


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 (this
“Amendment”) to the deferred compensation agreement between Jacksonville Savings Bank (the “Bank”)
and Dean H. Hess is hereby entered on January 17, 2018.


 


WHEREAS, Chapin
State Bank, the predecessor to the Bank, entered into a deferred compensation agreement with Mr. Hess on August 3, 1987 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the Bank
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (“Jacksonville”); and


 


WHEREAS, Jacksonville,
CNB Bank Shares, Inc. and CNB Acquisitions, Inc. have entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of January 17, 2018
(the “Merger Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, following
the completion of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement (the “Merger”), the Agreement shall
be assumed by any successor to the Bank pursuant to the terms of the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the premises, the mutual agreements herein set forth and such other consideration the sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.          Deletion
of Section 3 of the Agreement. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


2.          Amendment
to Section 4 of the Agreement. Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:


 


“4         NO
ACCELERATION OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS. No acceleration of the time or schedule of any payment may be made pursuant to this Agreement,
unless both written consent is received from the Director and such earlier distribution does not result in adverse tax consequences
under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.”


 


3.          Capitalized
Terms. Capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement except as otherwise expressly
provided in this Amendment.


 


4.          Effect
of Amendment. Except and to the extent modified by this Amendment, the provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Amendment.


 




     


     


    

  


5.          Effective
Date. This Amendment shall become effective on the date on which the Effective Time occurs. In the event the Merger Agreement
is terminated by the parties thereto without the transactions contemplated thereby having been consummated, this Amendment shall
be deemed null and void ab initio.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




    	 	2	 



     


    

  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below
have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


	 	JACKSONVILLE SAVINGS BANK
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Richard A. Foss
	 	Name:	Richard A. Foss
	 	Title:	President and CEO
	 	 	 
	 	DIRECTOR
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Dan H. Hess
	 	Dean H. Hess


 








    	 	3
#### Raymond UGULANO v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 62664.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Raymond Ugulano, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 359 So.2d 318.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**ALISHA L. FORD,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE**

**COMPANY,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 36 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 24th day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

GRANTED **. The issue rephrased for clarity is**

**(1) Did the Superior Court err in affirming the summ ary judgment order and**  **holding that the insurer’s underinsured motorist coverag e rejection form**  **“specifically complies” with Subsection 1731(c) of the Mot or Vehicle**  **Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1731(c)?**
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Corrpro Companies, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

(a)  The Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K/A) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

(b)  the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K/A.

|                         |  |                                                            
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 13, 2004 |  | /s/ Robert M. Mayer
Robert M. Mayer
Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is being filed as part of the
Form 10-K/A or as a separate disclosure document.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1608 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

with respect to future interstate designations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2021 

Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself, Mr. CUELLAR, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. JACKSON, 

Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas, and Mr. ARMSTRONG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 with respect to future interstate designations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ports-to-Plains High5 way Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUTURE INTERSTATE DESIGNATION AND OPER7 ATION. 

8 (a) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ROUTE SEGMENTS ON

9 INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Section 1105(e)(5) of the InterVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:45 Apr 30, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1608.IH H1608

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1608 IH

1 modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is 

2 amended— 

3 (1) in subparagraph (A)— 

4 (A) by inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(14)(A)(ii) 

5 (relating solely to the portion from Limon to I– 

6 76 in the vicinity of Brush),’’ after ‘‘subsection 

7 (c)(13),’’; and 

8 (B) by inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(38),’’ 

9 after ‘‘subsection (c)(37),’’; and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by adding at the 

11 end the following: ‘‘A State having jurisdiction over 

12 any segment of the routes referred to in subsection 

13 (c)(14)(A)(ii) (relating solely to the portion from 

14 Limon to I–76 in the vicinity of Brush) or (c)(38) 

15 shall erect signs, as appropriate and approved by the 

16 Secretary, identifying such segment as a future ad17 dition to the Interstate System.’’. 

18 (b) VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS.—Section 127 of 

19 title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

20 end the following: 

21 ‘‘(v) OPERATION OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN TEXAS, 

22 OKLAHOMA, COLORADO, AND NEW MEXICO HIGHWAYS.— 

23 If any segment of the routes referred to in section 

24 1105(c)(14)(A)(ii) (relating solely to the portion from 

25 Limon to I–76 in the vicinity of Brush) or section 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1608 IH

1 1105(c)(38) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef2 ficiency Act of 1991 is designated as a route on the Inter3 state System, a vehicle that could operate legally on that 

4 segment before the date of such designation may continue 

5 to operate on that segment, without regard to any require6 ment under this section.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Henry Adison SPENCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-585.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 19, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1973.

*21Mitchell M. Goldman, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By information the appellant was charged with assault with intent to commit first degree murder. He pleaded not guilty and waived trial by jury. On trial before the court he was found guilty, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years.

The appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, and that error therein was reflected by the court denying the defendant’s motion for acquittal at the close of the state’s case and denial of his motion for new trial grounded upon a contention of insufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, the appellant argues that the element of premeditation was not proved. The evidence was in conflict, but upon reviewing the record we are impelled to hold that there was competent substantial evidence, having due regard to the quantum of proof required in such case, upon which the trier of the facts properly could conclude that the offense charged in the information was proved.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7939

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JAMES EDWARD PRATT, a/k/a Phillip Pratt, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-00-27, CA-02-139-1) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Edward Pratt, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Edward Pratt seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) on the grounds it was untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pratt has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 on Form 10-K of Domain Extremes Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Francis Bok,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my
knowledge:





(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:  March
15, 2010








/s/ Francis
Bok


Francis
Bok


President





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Domain Extremes Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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. 95-50870

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROGELIO F. VILLARREAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(A-94-CR-136)

______________________________________________

May 22, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rogelio F. Villarreal appeals the denial of his motion to

vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255. Villarreal contends that his trial counsel was ineffective

for (1) agreeing to a total of 240 pounds of marijuana in the

guilty-plea agreement, when Villarreal was involved with only 140

pounds; (2) failing to call the government informant at sentencing,

thereby denying Villarreal the opportunity to confront his accuser;2

(3) failing to call the informant to testify as to what benefits he

received as a government witness; (4) advising Villarreal to agree

to waive his right to appeal and to proceed in a § 2255 motion; (5)

not contesting the presentence re port (PSR) and Villarreal's

ability to pay a fine; (6) failing to object to the two-point

enhancement for Villarreal's leadership role; (7) failing to object

to information in the PSR that the confidential infor mant's

statement that he had paid Villarreal $50,000 was corroborated by

a trace of money deposited in Villarreal's bank account. Finally,

he contends that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing

to file a direct appeal.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

conclude Villarreal has failed to show either that counsel's

performance was deficient or that, but for counsel's alleged errors

he would have insisted upon going to trial. M angum v. Hargett

, 67

F.3d 80, 84 (5th Cir. 1995), c ert. denied

,

__ U.S.

__, 116 S.Ct.

957 (1996). Further, he has failed to show a reasonable

probability that, but counsel's alleged errors, the result of his

sentencing proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, we

affirm essent ially for the reasons given by the district court.

United States v. Villarreal , No. A-95-CA-136 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 15,

1995).

AFFIRMED.
ANGUS S. KfNG, JR. 

MAINE 

DmKs<w S$NATI' OFHa 

l202l ZE~lil!44 

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer 

Chief, Essential Air Service Program 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer: 

March 27,2014 

MMEO SERVICES 

Bl:JClG€T 

INIE:lLI!JENC€ 

IlLitES AND ADM!IIi!STAATJON 

I understand that Peninsula Airways, Inc; (PenAir) has submitted a proposal in response to a 

Request for Proposal (RFP) for Essential Air Service (EAS) flights between Presque Isle, Maine, 

and Boston, Massachusetts. 

PenAir is a regional airline that flies nearly 45 flights per week in the eastern United States. The 

company, which was founded in 1955, has provided reliable air service to Presque 1sle and Bar 

Harbor since soon after it won an Essential Air Service (EAS) contract to serve those 

communities in early 2012. I am aware that PenAir has announced its intention to continue 

serving Bar Harbor without subsidy should the company again win the EAS contracts to serve 

Presque Isle and Plattsburg, New York. 

I recognize that this is a competitive RFP and simply request that you give PenAir's proposal 

every ?tppropriate consideration in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Also, I 

ask that you please keep me informed of the status of this process. If you have any questions or 

concerns, please contact Adam Lachman or Alex Porter in my office at (202) 224-5344. 

lNG, JR. - United States Senator
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CARLOS PEREZ-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Jorge

Lopez, a.k.a. Gilberto Salas,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50206

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04999-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Perez-Lopez appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed following

his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50206

Perez-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) failing

to use the Guidelines as a starting point in the sentencing process; (2) failing to

provide an adequate explanation for the sentence; and (3) focusing exclusively on

the need to protect the public. This contention lacks merit as the record reflects

that the court used the Guidelines range as the starting point in the sentencing

process, adequately explained the sentence, and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

Perez-Lopez also contends that the above-Guidelines sentence was

substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the 18-month sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section

3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
# L_2005295EN.01003501.xml

| 11.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 295/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 295/35

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1842/2005

of 10 November 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 1808/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 4 to 10 November 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 1808/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 November 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 November 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 291, 5.11.2005, p. 3.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

3

---