alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.26



AMENDMENT NUMBER 1

TO THE

COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC. BENEFIT RESTORATION PLAN

(the Plan)



Pursuant to Section 7.2 of the Plan, Community Bancshares, Inc. hereby amends the Plan, effective as of October 23, 2003, by adding a new Section 4.10 to read as follows:



4.10 Forfeiture of Benefits. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan, a participant shall forfeit all
benefits payable under this Plan, regardless of when such benefits accrue or have accrued, if the Board of Directors of Community Bancshares, Inc., or a committee thereof to which such authority is delegated, determines that the participant has (a)
breached a fiduciary duty owed to Community Bancshares, Inc. or any direct or indirect subsidiary thereof (collectively, the Company) or to any benefit plan maintained by the Company resulting in an injury to the Company or the plan, or
(b) committed an act of dishonesty resulting directly or indirectly in gain to or personal enrichment of the participant at the expense of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Community Bancshares, Inc. has caused this Amendment Number 1 to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of this 23rd day of
October, 2003 to be effective as provided above.



COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.By:

/s/ Patrick M. FrawleyPatrick M. FrawleyChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President




|                       
|-----------------------
|ATTEST:                
|                       
|/s/ William H. Caughran
|Its Secretary
<PAGE>
                               99.4 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-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002 of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof
(the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, R. Keith Wilt, Vice President &
Treasurer of the Company, certify, that:

     1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.



                                              /s/ R. Keith Wilt
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Name:   R. Keith Wilt
                                              Title:  Vice President & Treasurer
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)
                                              Date:   April 2, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000693

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHANNON KAINOA RYSER KEALA, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

KONA DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DTC-22-061452)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Chan, JJ.)Upon review of the record, it appears that DefendantAppellant Shannon Ryser, a.k.a., Shannon Kainoa Ryser Keala (Ryser ) appeals from the District Court of the Third Circuit's ( district court ) October 20, 2022 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment, which dismissed one of three charges in this case, October 20, 2022 Order and Notice of Entry of Order, which ordered Ryser to return to court for a pre-trial conference, or from the purported "final judgment" of the district court's "claim of personal jurisdiction" over Ryser. We conclude that the court lacks appellate jurisdiction because the district court has not entered a final decision or a final judgment. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-12 (2016); State v. Nicol , 140 Hawai i 482, 490, 403 P.3d 259, 267(2017). Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000693 11-JAN-2023 07:49 AM Dkt. 22 ODSLJNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, January 11, 2023. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

2
No. 10532.

#### The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. *v.*Curran, by etc.

Decided December 1, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court. of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Cook, McGozvan & Foote,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. L. Hotge*and, *Mr. E. S. Meyer,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of circuit court reversed and that of the court of common pleas affirmed.

Price, C. J., Stiauck, Summers'and Spear, JJ., concur.
#### Bazal R. BABCOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-785.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 12 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIOS


                         COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.
             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Years Ended December 31,
                                                                      ---------------------------------
                                                                        2000         1999        1998
                                                                      --------     --------    --------
                                                                             (Dollars in thousands)
<S>                                                                   <C>          <C>         <C>
Pretax income ....................................................    $ (3,919)    $  2,161    $  5,106
Add fixed charges:
    Interest on deposits .........................................      29,711       23,594      21,963
    Interest on borrowings .......................................       3,818        1,023         730
    Portion of rental expense representing interest expense ......         519          227         180
                                                                      --------     --------    --------
        Total fixed charges ......................................      34,048       24,844      22,873
                                                                      --------     --------    --------

Income before fixed charges ......................................    $ 30,129     $ 27,005    $ 27,979
                                                                      ========     ========    ========

Pretax income ....................................................    $ (3,919)    $  2,161    $  5,106
Add fixed charges:
    Interest on borrowings .......................................       3,818        1,023         730
    Portion of rental expense representing interest expense ......         519          227         180
                                                                      --------     --------    --------
        Total fixed charges (excluding interest on deposits) .....       4,337        1,250         910
                                                                      --------     --------    --------

Income before fixed charges (excluding interest on deposits) .....    $    418     $  3,411    $  6,016
                                                                      ========     ========    ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES:
    Including interest on deposits ...............................        .88x        1.09x       1.22x
    Excluding interest on deposits ...............................        .10x        2.73x       6.61x
</TABLE>
#### ARCO POLYMERS, INC., Appellant, v. STUDIENGESELLSCHAFT KOHLE and Max-Planck-Institut Fur Kohlenfor-schung, Appellees.

No. 83-642.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 15, 1983.

Before FRIEDMAN, RICH, BALDWIN, KASHIWA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Arco Polymers, Inc. (“Arco”), instituted this action in the United States *799District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaratory judgment that certain of the appellees’ United States patents are invalid and have not been infringed through Arco’s operations at its plant in Monument, Texas. This appeal involves one of those patents, the ’115 patent.

The district court, 555 F.Supp. 547, dismissed the complaint as barred by *res judicata*because: (1) Arco had purchased the plant from a company that itself had purchased the plant from Phillips Petroleum Company (“Phillips”); and (2) in prior litigation, Phillips’ operations in the Monument plant had been held to infringe the ’115 patent. *Ziegler v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,*483 F.2d 858 (5th Cir.1973), *cert. denied,*414 U.S. 1079, 94 S.Ct. 597, 38 L.Ed.2d 485 (1973). The sole question in this appeal is whether the district court properly applied *res judicata*to bar Arco from litigating the validity of the ’115 patent.

There is pending before this court an appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in *Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H.,*v. *Dart Industries, Inc.,*549 F.Supp. 716, which held the ’115 patent valid and infringed. *Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H., v. Dart Industries, Inc.,*Appeal No. 83-591.

Arco informed the district court in the present case that it “agrees to be bound by the final result in the Delaware [Dart] litigation.” This court expects to hear the *Dart*case in the summer or early fall. Since Arco will be bound by the “final result” of the *Dart*case — a case which directly involves the validity of the patent at issue here — we think it appropriate to suspend further proceedings in this case until we have decided *Dart.*The decision in *Dart*may be dispositive of the present case. If it is, there would be no need for us to determine the *res judicata*issue in the present case.

Accordingly, it is ordered that proceedings in this case be suspended, pending the decision in the *Dart*case. After that case has been decided, we shall determine the appropriate disposition of the appeal in the present case.
#### Willie SHELBY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1881.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 18, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Steven L. Bolotin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Compare *J. M. D. v. State,*328 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); *Spencer v. State,*332 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); *State v. Robinson,*336 So.2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
```

[Federal Register: August 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 167)]
[Notices]               
[Page 52935]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30au10-41]                         

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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting agenda.

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

Date and Time: Wednesday, September 1, 2010; 9:30 a.m.-12 p.m. EDT.

Place: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1201 New York Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20005.

Agenda: Commissioners will hold a closed session discussion regarding a 
personnel matter on the appointment of an EAC general counsel.
    * View EAC Regulations Implementing Government in the Sunshine Act. 
This meeting will be closed to the public.

Person to Contact for Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

Alice Miller,
Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-21713 Filed 8-26-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
# Dec 2020
#### Hazel D. Boob, Appellant, *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Appellee.

Argued December 5, 1974,

before Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*Hazel D. Boob,*appellant, for herself.

*Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*625May 1, 1975:

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

This is the appeal of Hazel Boob (claimant) from an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that she was ineligible for compensation because she voluntarily left work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.1 The claimant had been employed by Bro-Dart Industries, Inc. (Bro-Dart) in Williamsport, located some forty to fifty miles from her residence in Beech Creek. She states that she was forced to resign on September 29, 1972 because her car broke down and she was unable either to acquire a replacement or to obtain other reasonable public or private transportation to and from work. The Board determined that this was not a sufficient and compelling reason for voluntarily terminating her employment and benefits were denied. This appeal followed.

Under Section 402 of The Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. §802:

> “An employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week—

> “b(l) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . .”

“ [T] ransportation inconveniences must be serious and unreasonable to constitute good cause under the statute.” *Borman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 241, 245, 316 A.2d 679, 681 (1974). Transportation inconvenience must present an insurmountable problem and the burden of proof lies with the claimant. *Sledejowski Unemployment Compensation Case,*195 Pa. Superior Ct. 337, 171 A.2d 546 (1961) ; *Davidson Unemployment Compensation Case,*189 Pa. Superior Ct. 543, 151 A.2d 870 (1959) ; *Szojka Unemployment Compensation Case,*187 Pa. Superior Ct. *626643, 146 A.2d 81 (1958). *See also, Dower Unemployment Compensation Case,*179 Pa. Superior Ct. 201, 115 A.2d 878 (1955). At oral argument the Board conceded that the claimant met this very stringent test.

Absence of transportation, however, may in itself render the claimant unavailable for suitable work under Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law thus making her ineligible for benefits. *Bledsoe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,*13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 34, 317 A.2d 320 (1974) ; *Zupanic Unemployment Compensation Case,*186 Pa. Superior Ct. 252, 142 A.2d 395 (1958). The Board here failed to consider that issue, however, and we must, therefore, remand the case for determination on that matter. We issue, therefore, the following

Order

And Now, this 1st day of May, 1975, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby reversed and the record remanded to the Board for a determination consistent with the above opinion.

1

. See Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, *as amended,*43 P.S. §802 (b) (1).
[No. 239-3.

Division Three.

June 18, 1971.]

#### Willis J. Nichols *et al., Respondents,*v. Harry Lopeman *et al., Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 18437, B. J. McLean, J., entered March 20, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
CERTIFICATION

I, Larry F. Vance, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Earth
Search Sciences, Inc., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Earth Search
Sciences, Inc.;

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

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

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          (c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

          (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

     6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: July 14, 2006            /s/ Larry F Vance
                               -------------------------------------------
                               Larry F Vance
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
                               (Principal Executive Officer)
259 La. 748

#### Hal F. McCULLOUGH et ux. v. Shelton B. McANELLY et al.

No. 51566.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 1971.

In re: Hal F. McCullough and Johanna Amoroso McCullough applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 248 So.2d 7.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in the judgment.

SUMMERS, J., dissents from the refusal to grant writs.
#### AIRMOTIVE SUPPLIERS CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. DISPATCH SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-89.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

OW-2008-0517

DCN 10031 

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 16, 2014

Order 

December 16, 2014

149073(75)(76)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

RAHIM OMARKHAN LOCKRIDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 149073

COA: 310649

Oakland CC: 2011-238930-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s 

Office to extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief 

submitted on December 12, 2014, is accepted for filing. On further order of the Chief 

Justice, the motion of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office to participate in oral 

argument by sharing ten minutes of the Oakland County Prosecutor’s allotted time for 

argument is GRANTED.
# C_2022198EN.01001201.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — Lukáš Wagenknecht v European Commission

(Case C-130/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Combating fraud - Multiannual Financial Framework - Alleged conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic - Request to prevent the latter from meeting with the College of European Commissioners - Request to stop direct payments in the EU budget in favour of certain agri-food groups - Action for failure to act - Alleged failure to act by the European Commission - Composition of the General Court of the European Union - Alleged lack of impartiality - Application inadmissible - Definition of position - Locus standi - Interest in bringing proceedings)

(2022/C 198/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (represented by: A. Koller, advokátka)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---