alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.28



 EXHIBIT 10.28 

SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE
KEYCORP 
 EXCESS CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN 

WHEREAS, KeyCorp has established the KeyCorp Excess Cash Balance Pension Plan (the “Plan”), and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has authorized its Compensation Committee to permit amendments to the Plan, and 

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of KeyCorp has determined it desirable to amend the Plan and has
accordingly authorized the execution of this Second Amendment,  
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to such action of the Compensation
Committee, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Article III, Section 3.1 shall be amended to delete it in its entirety and to substitute therefore the following: 


“3.1 Eligibility. A Participant shall be eligible for an Excess Pension Benefit hereunder if the Participant
(i) terminates employment with an Employer on or after age 55 with five or more years of Credited Service, (ii) terminates his or her active employment with an Employer upon becoming Disabled after completing five or more years of Credited
Service and disability benefits have ceased under the KeyCorp Long-Term Disability Plan due to the Participant’s election of an Early or Normal Retirement under the Pension Plan, or (iii) dies after completing five years of Credited
Service, and has a Beneficiary who is eligible for a benefit under the Pension Plan. 
 Effective January 1, 2003 a Participant shall
also be eligible for an Excess Pension Benefit if the Participant becomes involuntarily terminated from his or her employment with an Employer for reasons other than the Participant’s Discharge for Cause, and (i) as of the
Participant’s termination date the Participant has a minimum of twenty-five (25) or more years of Credited Service, and (ii) the Participant enters into a written non-solicitation and non-compete agreement under terms that are
satisfactory to the Employer. 
 For purposes of this Section 3.1, hereof, the term “Discharge for Cause” shall mean a
Participant’s employment termination that is the result of the Participant’s violation of the Employer’s policies, practices or procedures, violation of city, state, or federal law, or failure to perform his or her assigned job duties
in a satisfactory manner. The Employer in its sole and absolute discretion shall determine whether a Participant has been Discharged for Cause. 

Notwithstanding any of the forgoing provisions of this Section 3.1, however, a Participant’s eligibility for an Excess Pension
Benefit shall be subject to the election requirements of Article V of the Plan.” 
  

	 	2.	The amendment set forth in Paragraph 1 shall be effective as of January 1, 2003. 

  

	 	3.	Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, KeyCorp has caused this Second Amendment to the Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officer to be effective as of the first day of January, 2003.  
  

			
	KEYCORP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Steven N. Bulloch

	Title: Assistant Secretary
#### Elmer K. JACKSON and Johnny Hisaw v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50365.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 14, 1978.

Eaves & Eaves, G. Jyles Eaves, Henry C. Wood, Louisville, for appellants.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Catherine W. Underwood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

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

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

Affirmed.
ORDER OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL

Order Pronounced February 5, 2015 

THE MOTION TO STAY IN THE FOLLOWING CASE IS DENIED: 

 

 

15-0084 IN RE KUBOSH LITIGATION 

 

 Defendants’ Request for Immediate Stay of All District Court Proceedings, filed 

by Felix Michael Kubosh, et al. on January 30, 2015, is denied as supplemented. The 

motion to transfer remains pending before the Panel.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33453]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5939-3]


Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board; Nominees, Meeting Date 
and Agenda

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will convene an open 
meeting of the Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) on 
January 16, 1998, from 1 pm to 5 pm. This meeting immediately follows 
the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) 
Third Interim Meeting and will be held in the Sheraton National Hotel 
at 900 South Orme Street in Arlington, VA. Directions can be obtained 
from the hotel by calling 703/521-2122.
    The agenda will include discussions on (1) the fact findings of the 
Good Laboratory Practices subcommittee, which will present its final 
report; (2) consideration of a request to establish a separate fact 
finding subcommittee on third party assessors; and (3) a report from 
NELAC on issues regarding implementation. Comments on the NELAC 
standards, as discussed during the Third Interim Meeting, will be 
solicited. Standards are scheduled to be posted on the electronic 
bulletin board on December 13, 1997. The Internet site address for the 
standards is: http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/html/nelac/nelac.htm.
    The public is encouraged to attend. Time will be allotted for 
public comment. Written comments are most valuable and should be 
directed to Ms. Jeanne Mourrain; Designated Federal Officer; USEPA; 
NERL (MD-75A); Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. If questions arise, 
please contact Ms. Mourrain at 919/541-1120, fax 919/541-4261, or E-
mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c7173696e6e7d75723276797d7272795c796c7d717d757032796c7d327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3954564c4b4b58505717535c5857575c795c495854585055175c4958175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 10, 1997.
Nancy W. Wentworth,
Director, Quality Assurance Division.
[FR Doc. 97-33453 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1404

___________________________

Jose Luis Gonzalez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: September 24, 2105

 Filed: October 7, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Jose Luis Gonzalez petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an

immigration judge to deny withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. After careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence 1

supports the decision. See Davilia-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir.

2008). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The untimeliness of the related asylum application is not an issue before us. 1

-2-
From: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov > Cc: Anna Wood/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Howard Hoffman/DC/USEPA/ US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

Lisa Sutton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/09/2010 03:35 PM Subject: SIP Fix Rule edits per 1 pm call today

Hi Christine,

Please find below edits per our discussion at 1pm.

1. EPA is fine with the CEQ language edits.

2. State hearing process

We accept the substance of the interagency comments on the part of the SIP Call preamble concerning making recommendations that the states may streamli ne their state hearings. Here is revised text:

Christine, we would like to clarify that the APA is irrelevant in this context. This section concerns STATE hearings and whether the STATE hearing is OK under the CAA. The CAA comes into play b/c it requires a state hearing, and further requires that the stat e hearing have adequate notice.

The APA applies to only FEDERAL hearings. It has n o relevance here, which, again, concerns only STATE hearings.

3. Parallel processing:

We are not inclined to accept further interagency e dits on the part of the SIP Call preamble concernin g parallel processing. The edits solicit comment on our authority to conduct parallel processing. Thes e edits are unacceptable because: a. Parallel processing is well-established. It is authorized by regulation, under 40 CFR part 51 app endix

V section 2.3:

EPA has employed it many times. Here are a few exa mples:

b. Soliciting comment on parallel processing is no t only unnecessary, it would be detrimental because it could chill the expressed desire of some states' to meet the tight SIP deadlines under this rulemaking and the Tailoring Rule through parallel processing.Please let us know asap that all is well and you ca n clear the packages, so we can send the final file s

through ROCIS.

Thanks for all your help !!

raj

Raj Rao, P.E. Group Leader, NSRG OAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03)

109 TW Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709

919-541-5344

919-541-5509 fax

Note: Positions or views expressed here do not rep resent official EPA policy. Interagency deliberati ve and Confidential.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-4798 ALPHONZO R. GRIFFIN, a/k/a Fuzzy, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-907, CA-97-2987-6-21) Submitted: August 24, 1999 Decided: September 29, 1999 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Kurt Tavernier, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. E. JeanHoward, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Alphonzo R. Griffin appeals his conviction and sentence after a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and todistribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 846 (1994). Griffin's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Griffin was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he failed to file one. Following a de novo review of the record, we find that the district court complied with all the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Griffin's guilty plea. See United States v. Goins , 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. We also find noplain error in the calculation of Griffin's sentence. In particular, Griffin was correctly sentenced as a career offender. He was over eighteen years old when he committed the instant felony offense, whichinvolved a controlled substance, and he had two prior felony convictions. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (1995). In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have reviewed the record for potential error and have found none. Therefore, we affirm Griffin's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the clientrequests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that acopy thereof was served on the client. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 241 

To reauthorize the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act of 

1998. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2021 

Mr. CHABOT (for himself and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 

Conservation Act of 1998. 

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 ‘‘Tropical Forest and 

5 Coral Reef Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 806(d) of the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 

8 Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431d(d)) is amend9 ed by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: 

10 ‘‘(9) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2022. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 241 IH

1 ‘‘(10) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2023. 

2 ‘‘(11) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2024. 

3 ‘‘(12) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2025. 

4 ‘‘(13) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2026.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Harold Raymond HOOKS, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director of Florida Division of Corrections, Tallahassee, Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-806.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 4, 1970.

Harold Raymond Hooks, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Hayles, 240 So.2d 1, Florida Supreme Court opinion filed September 30, 1970.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
255 La. 148

#### Joyce Elaine REYNOLDS et al. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY et al.

No. 50224.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Joyce Elaine Reynolds et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bossier. 228 So.2d 76.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
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 quarterly report of AMHN, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2009 (the Report), I, Robert Cambridge, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert Cambridge   
|Robert Cambridge       
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 16, 2009      

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Corporation (the “Corporation”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William W. Boyle, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
|   | /s/ W. W. Boyle                                     |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | W. W. Boyle                                         |   |
|   | Senior Vice President, and  Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |                                                |   |
|   | Date: August 5, 2009                           |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32
CERTIFICATION

We, Ronald W. Kaplan, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey A.
Behrendt, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of Continental Global
Group, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
       quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully
       complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

/s/ Ronald W. Kaplan                        /s/ Jeffrey A. Behrendt
--------------------------------------      ------------------------------------
Ronald W. Kaplan, President and Chief       Jeffrey A. Behrendt, Vice President
   Executive Officer                           and Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  August 14, 2007


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by Continental Global Group, Inc. for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that Continental Global Group, Inc. specifically
incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joe Ronnie ABRAM v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50790.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 20, 1978.

Rex K. Jones, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

A. P. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Calvin Coolidge Williams, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before SUGG, WALKER and COFER, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; R. I. Prichard, III, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
Second Quarterly Report to Congress on International Monetary Fund Lending

April 1 – June 30, 2021

Board 

Approval 

Date Country Amount Type U.S. Position Background

April 2 Kenya SDR 1.655 billion

USD 2.34 billion

Kenya - Requests for an Extended 

Arrangement Under the Extended Fund 

Facility and an Arrangement Under the 

Extended Credit Facility

Support IMF Executive Board 

Approves US$2.34 Billion 

ECF and EFF 

Arrangements for Kenya

June 7 Senegal SDR 453 million

USD 650 million

Senegal - Third Review Under the Policy 

Coordination Instrument and Request for 

Modification of Quantitative Targets, 

and Requests for a Stand-By 

Arrangement and an Arrangement Under 

the Standby Credit Facility

Support IMF Executive Board 

Approves US$650 million 

Stand-by Arrangement and 

an Arrangement under the 

Standby Credit Facility 

and Completes the Third 

Review Under the Policy 

Coordination Instrument 

for Senegal

June 28 Uganda SDR 722 million

USD 1 billion

Uganda - Request for a Three-Year 

Arrangement Under the Extended Credit 

Facility

Support IMF Executive Board 

Approves US</head> 

billion ECF Arrangement 

for Uganda

June 30 Jordan SDR 144.1 million

USD 200 million

Jordan - Second Review Under the 

Extended Arrangement Under the 

Extended Fund Facility, Request for 

Augmentation of Access, and 

Modification of Performance Criteria

Support IMF Executive Board 

Concludes Second Review 

Under Jordan’s Extended 

Arrangement and Request 

for Augmentation of

Access to Address the 

Impact of COVID-19
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 68291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34093]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than January 13, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. HUBCO, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey; to acquire Poughkeepsie 
Financial Corp., Poughkeepsie, New York, and thereby indirectly acquire 
Bank of the Hudson, Poughkeepsie, New York, and thereby engage in 
operating a federal chartered savings bank, pursuant to Sec.  
225.28(b)(4)(ii) of the Board's Regulation Y.
    2. Swiss Bank Corporation, Basle Switzerland; to acquire Brunswick 
Warburg, Inc., New York, New York, and thereby engage in financial and 
investment advisory activities, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(6) of the 
Board's Regulation Y, and securities brokerage activities, riskless 
principal activities, private placement services and other 
transactional services, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(7) of the Board's 
Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 24, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-34093 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F