alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clark *et al. versus*Freeman.

Proof of the handwriting of thé maker of a promissory note, and the testimony of a witness that he had corresponded with “ Bradner and Co. of New York,” and from his knowledge of their signatures thus acquired, his opinion was that the endorsement was made by “Bradner & Co.,” was sufficient to let the note go to the jury.

The execution of the note, possession of it by the plaintiff, evidence of the handwriting of the endorser, in the absence of evidence of any other *firm of the same name, is primá, facie*evidence of identity.

Error to the Common Pleas of *McKean county.*

This action was brought for the recovery of a promissory note, dated 31st May, 1850, for $728.72, signed by defendant, payable to the order of Bradner & Co., and endorsed, or said to be endorsed, by the payees.

Hamlin (a witness produced by plaintiff) deposed that he knew the parties to the suit, and had had correspondence with Bradner & Co., of New York — had addressed them letters, and had received replies; and, being shown the notes, said, “ from the knowledge I have of the signature of Bradner & Co., acquired •by the correspondence aforesaid, my opinion is that the endorsement of Bradner & Co., upon the back of the note, was entered thereon by Bradner & Co.” The Court admitted the note, and defendant excepted.

*Johnson*and Brown, for plaintiff in error,

cited 1 *Greenl. Evidence,*§ 577; 2 *Starkie*373. The identity of the endorsers with Bradner & Co. is not established.

*Witmore,*for defendant in error,

cited 1 *Greenleaf,*3d ed., § 575.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Lewis, C. J:

This is an action on a promissory note, drawn in favour of “Bradner & Co.” or order, and purporting to bear their, endorsement. The Court admitted the note in evidence after proof of the handwriting of the makers, and evidence given by B. D. Hamlin that he had corrresponded with Bradner & Co., of New York; and, from his knowledge of their signature, thus acquired, his opinion was that the endorsement was entered by “ Bradner & Co.” The admission of the note in evidence was the error assigned.

The execution of the note was an admission of the existence of the payees therein named; and the possession of it by the plaintiff, with Mr. Hamlin’s testimony to the endorsement by *134“ Bradner & Co.,” in the absence of evidence of any other firm of that name, was *primd facie*evidence that the endorsement was made by the proper parties. This was sufficient to justify the Court in admitting the note to be read to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.
SO UHE \UNIDED STATES. ii aN
Supervinor’a District Wo, Lf Llesiest Sheet No,
Corrccrenon mares wa tore. be

Meme of Institution, 2X.
Ward of city, BE,

day of Pune, 1000, Lpocteaata..ofipsean. + Brumerator.

j
!
H

railed

Llanors | Bher 2.

Le laner Clow
“Braz treat | Grotsgt Cragin

SS

2
Yiabaccatt

reeks

Pauryott,|. teapot | Raugartt

a Lo
a J Aecra irene Peangglivnni ls
Trans tet, ara
ips oll 3 Bia Paige (asa
feo yeen/s)
Fl Bee. “esr. 12
i

i
sh ebestan | Lee §tie, 6 “ox. \(002 Pi

Sistacs | Yocllavar | Secs a

ae

NEES

Pousrincent® | sale orth
Pacenrtonel Facet Kien

Fito [One Pacatth
Lelie | one. j i or.
|

Garten | Gunton denten
feicw Gotu | Geetigne
Grclnis | Glace
ow Gon aay ea a Leiwsd

1 lyon dre 20
A fee “eH fa
Pager dre | eae thes
sezethy | be [eden hon

ts
“Leash O- 4) Get \eporine|
Weenie le eee. ae

~ (ea

ae a rg i fence Teeter, Gpogtnns Bede i pega le

eB = 21 29 Cascontals “ee list:
ape eles : = We 2 i ze
gn 1860.30) 09/2 “eatonein| Pewcenai=| Pestana] |
Asatte Ie. 126) _ fens feare Cs. fenarcrnet” |
gees: earare Geeedien. | Given es o i er

SBR

SRaS ERS

E Lowa Caren 72
| tes epy| By fd | | Senne Yelle Spoon onan Pan

Warrsit [a een |Papcoathuee i
Br.tut? Chrisiphier in \p4\ deka \eoasivaing 2 if revere cane ‘ Prrtnwta NA

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.qov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Se AN a ae
Exhibit 10.5
​
Second Amendment to Issuer Repurchase Plan
(under Rules 10b-18 and 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
​
This Second Amendment to Issuer Repurchase Plan, dated September 27, 2022 (the “Second Amendment”), amends that certain Issuer Repurchase Plan dated January 10, 2022 (the “Purchase Plan”) entered into by and between eXp World Holdings, Inc. (“Purchaser” or “Issuer”) and Stephens Inc. (“Stephens”).  The Purchase Plan was previously amended by the First Amendment to Issuer Repurchase Plan dated May 6, 2022.
​
Purchaser and Stephens hereby agree as follows:
​
1.All capitalized terms used in this Second Amendment and not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Purchase Plan unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
​
2. Section C.3.(c) of the Purchase Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
​
(c)Beginning on October 1, 2021 and continuing throughout the Plan Purchase Period, the “Daily Purchase Amount” for any Purchase Day shall be the maximum number of shares allowed under Rule 10b-18(b)(4) (using 25% of average daily trading volume reported for the Stock during the four calendar weeks preceding the week in which the purchase is to be effected); provided, however, that the total dollar amount of all aggregate purchases under the Purchase Plan during any calendar month shall not exceed $13,300,000, not including any commissions or fees.
​
3. Purchaser hereby represents, warrants and covenants that (i) Purchaser is not aware of any material nonpublic information concerning the Purchaser or its securities, (ii) Purchaser is entering into this Second Amendment in good faith and not as part of a plan or scheme to evade compliance with the federal securities laws, and (iii) there are no legal, contractual or regulatory restrictions applicable to Purchaser or its affiliates that would prohibit Purchaser from entering into this Second Amendment or prohibit any purchase pursuant to the Purchase Plan, as amended hereby.
​
4. Except as expressly provided in this Second Amendment, the Purchase Plan, as previously amended, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
​
​

1



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed this Purchase Plan as of the date first written above.
​
	​


	​


	​


	​


	​



	EXP WORLD HOLDINGS, INC.
	​
	STEPHENS INC.

	​
	​
	​

	​
	​
	​

	​
	​
	​

	By:
	/s/ Kent Cheng
	​
	By:
	/s/ Leon Lants

	Printed Name:
	Kent Cheng
	​
	Printed Name:
	Leon Lants

	Title:
	Chief Accounting Officer
	​
	Title:
	Director of Trading Operations



​

2
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. George Sullivan JOHNSON, Relator, v. Honorable Dan SATIN, as Judge of the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-380.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 14, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
#### Jo Ann Baird BROWN and Gerald Brown, Appellants, v. Clem William MATHERS, Jr., and William T. W. Mathers, Co-Executors of the Estate of Clem Mathers, Deceased, and Virginia Barbara Mathers, by her next friend, Clem Thomas Mathers, Jr., Appellees.

No. 2654.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 5, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Kim Kotzker, Respondent, v Richard Bonafilia, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 620]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated July 19, 1999, which, upon finding that the appellant violated two orders of protection of the same court dated June 24, 1999 (Garvey, J.), and July 2, 1999 (Warren, J.), respectively, committed him to the Rockland County Jail for a period of 210 days.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

*557Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the performance of his assigned counsel amply met the standard of meaningful representation *(see, People v Henry,*95 NY2d 563; *People v Blaylock,*266 AD2d 400).

Moreover, in light of the order of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated September 15, 1999, releasing the appellant from jail, any issue concerning the length of his sentence is academic. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Charles WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 6, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Jeffrey H. Barker, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying without evidentiary hearing a Rule 3.850, RCrP, 33 F.S.A., motion to vacate. Based on our review of the record and briefs, we hold that the allegations in the motion were insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing and, therefore, affirm the order on appeal.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
259 La. 897

#### Leman TRAHAN v. Buford TRAHAN et al.

No. 51751.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1971.

In re: Leman Trahan applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Jefferson Davis. 251 So.2d 127.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Quarterly Report of Cutter & Buck Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December XX, 2002 ("the Report"), I, Ernest R. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.

| |  | /s/ERNEST R. JOHNSONErnest R. Johnson
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program for the Virgin Islands.

The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the Virgin Islands' EB status:
      - The Virgin Islands' 13-week insured unemployment rate for the week ending June 2, 2018, was below the 5.00 percent threshold. Therefore, the EB period for the Virgin Islands will end on June 23, 2018. The State will remain in an “off” period for a minimum of 13 weeks.

## Information for Claimants

The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state ending an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice to each individual who is currently filing claims for EB of the forthcoming termination of the EB period and its effect on the individual's right to EB (20 CFR 615.13 (c)).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Attn: Anatoli Sznoluch, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3176 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:                         *Sznoluch.Anatoli@dol.gov.*

Rosemary Lahasky,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training, Labor.

[FR Doc. 2018-15910 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4510-FT-P
#### INLET FISHERIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. JOHNSON STEEL & WIRE COMPANY, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-1164.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and statements of consolidated operations and
accumulated deficit on pages 2 and 3 of the Company's Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 1998, and is qualified in entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          41,709
<SECURITIES>                                    24,868
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,927
<PP&E>                                         302,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                     153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 407,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,244
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       220,541
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,138
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   407,262
<SALES>                                             91
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,665
<CGS>                                              804
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (32)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,839)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,469)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Roland JOHNSON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53193.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Roland Johnson applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. Issue presented should have been raised before this court by way of appeal and cannot be availed of on writ of habeas corpus.
#### Uhlan Stanley NEWTON, Appellant, v. Ruby Virginia NEWTON, Appellee.

No. 70-12.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15706]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 17, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior 
Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can 
also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c6f4341414942585f024d5c5c40454f4d584543425f6c5f58405f024a5e4e02435e4b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82c1edefefe7ecf6f1ace3f2f2eeebe1e3f6ebedecf1c2f1f6eef1ace4f0e0acedf0e5">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. First Security Bancorp, Searcy, Arkansas; to acquire additional 
voting shares of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc., Leawood, Kansas, and 
thereby indirectly acquire shares of CrossFirst Bank, Leawood, Kansas.
    2. Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc., Poplar Bluff, Missouri; to 
merge with Gideon Bancshares Company, Dexter, Missouri, and thereby 
indirectly acquire First Commercial Bank, Gideon, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 18, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-15706 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Mary LEWIS, Alice Ellingson and Flora Flynn, Appellants, v. LAKE REGION PACKING ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 69-582.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 6, 1970.

Appeal quashed.
#### FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.

No. 42520.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 22, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 10.36B SECOND AMENDMENT TO BUSINESS LOAN AGREEMENT This Second Amendment to Business Loan Agreement (the Amendment) is made as of October 27, 2006, between Bank of America, N. A.(Bank) and Network Equipment Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Borrower). RECITALS A. Borrower and Bank entered into that certain Business Loan Agreement dated as of November 29, 2004, as amended by the First Amendment dated as of September 22, 2005 (the Agreement). B. Borrower and Bank desire to further amend certain terms and provisions of the Agreement as herein provided. AGREEMENT 1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning given to them in the Agreement. 2. Amendments. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 2.01 In Section 1.2 of the Agreement, the date "October 30, 2007" is substituted for the date "October 30, 2006." 3. Representations and Warranties. Borrower hereby represents and warrants to Bank that: (i) no default specified in the Agreement and no event which with notice or lapse of time or both would become such a default has occurred and is continuing and has not been previously waived, (ii) the representations and warranties of Borrower pursuant to the Agreement are true on and as of the date hereof as if made on and as of said date, (iii) the making and performance by Borrower of this Amendment have been duly authorized by all necessary action, and (iv) no consent, approval, authorization, permit or license is required in connection with the making or performance of the Agreement as amended hereby. 4. Conditions. This Amendment will be effective when the Bank receives the following items, in form and content acceptable to the Bank. 4.01 This Amendment duly executed by all parties hereto. 4.02 A Consent and Reaffirmation of Guaranty duly executed by NET Federal, Inc. 4.03 Payment of all out-of-pocket expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred by the Bank in connection with the preparation of this Amendment. 5. Effect of Amendment. Except as provided in this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall be performed by the parties hereto according to its terms and provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties hereto as of the date first above written. /s/ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. /s/ NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
#### C. W. WHITEHEAD, Appellant, v. HARDIN’S BAKERIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 46668.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 15, 1972.

Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellant.

T. Kenneth Watts, Meridian, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER BRAND,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1318

September 1, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Pasco County; Gregory G. Groger, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, LaROSE, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.