alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


 


Elizabeth Keogh


Forest Hills NY 11375


917.572.6522


ekeogh@sterlingbank.com


 


Re: Conditional Offer of Employment


 


Dear Elizabeth Keogh,


 


Thank you for your interest in a career with Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (“Sterling”). I am pleased to offer you the position of Chief Legal Officer reporting to Thomas O’Brien, Chairman/CEO,
Executive. Your start date is October 24, 2022. Please note that this offer of employment is contingent upon favorable background checks.


 


Your base salary is $325,000 annualized and paid biweekly at $12,500
per payroll (26 payrolls per year). Your position is considered a remote position that may be required at times to visit a Sterling facility
to conduct essential functions, training and/or meet performance expectations. You will also be provided with an annual travel allowance
of $25,000 that will be paid monthly based on the receipts produced for any travel expenses you incur as a result of business operations
and needs. In addition, you will be eligible for an annual 23% discretionary target bonus. This offer shall expire on October 24, 2022
if you have not started your employment by that date.


 


This position is eligible for Paid Time Off as per Sterling policy
and 10 paid holidays according to the Holiday Calendar. In addition you are eligible for full health and wellness benefits including 401K
Company matching according to Sterling’s policies.


 


On October 24, 2022, your New Hire
orientation will be held remotely via Zoom by Doreen Widmyer, HR & Talent Associate at 9:30 AM EST. At orientation, New Hire paperwork
will be provided and reviewed with you. Please remember to have the following documents emailed to Jamie Sandoval, HRBP Manager &
SAFE ACT Officer at jsandoval@sterlingbank.com by or before your new hire orientation. The following documents will be required:
(1) a signed copy of this offer letter; (2) the completed copy of Section 1 of form I-9 and the acceptable documents as indicated on
the attached list for the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form; and (3) your bank name, account number and routing number for
setting up direct deposit for your payroll.


 


We are sure that you will find exciting
challenges and opportunities with Sterling. We look forward to a mutually rewarding relationship. Please acknowledge
your acceptance of the foregoing by signing and sending a copy of this offer letter to Jamie Sandoval via email no later than October
17, 2022.


 


Welcome to Sterling.


 


Sincerely,


 


	/s/ Veronica Rodriguez	 	Accepted: Elizabeth Keogh
	SVP, Head of HR & Diversity Officer	 	Signature:	/s/ Elizabeth Keogh
	 	 	Date: October 17, 2022




 


One Towne Square • 19th Floor - Suite 1900 • Southfield, Michigan 48076
#### City of Findlay *v.*Public Utilities Commission.

*Public Utilities Commission*— Lawfulness *or reasonableness of order*— Review *by Supreme Court*— Unified *telephone service —Valuation and rates.*

(No. 18121

Decided June 21, 1924.)

Error to the Public Utilities Commission.

*Mr. W. S. Snook,*city solicitor, and *Mr. A. G. Fuller,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. G. G. \Grabbe,*attorney general; *Mr. John W. Bricker; Mr. Karl E. Burr*and *Mr. Charles S. Maltby,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the order of the said public utilities commission be and the same is hereby, affirmed for the reason upon the consideration of the record the court is of the opinion that the order of the public utilities commission is not unreasonable or unlawful. *Hocking Valley Ry. Co.*v. *Public Utilities Commission, 92*Ohio St., 362, approved and followed.

*Order affirmed.*

Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.

Marshall, C. J., and Allen, J., dissent.
# C_2012269EN.01000101.xml

| 6.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6568 — Cisco Systems/NDS Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 269/01

On 23 July 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6568. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6568. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2012120EN.01000201.xml

| 25.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6519 — Cremer/L Possehl/Possehl Erzkontor JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 120/02

On 23 March 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6519. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6519. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1816 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1816

 To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of 
  marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the 
    United States, or any State or local government, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 12 (legislative day, December 11), 2013

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Schumer) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for the registration of 
  marks consisting of a flag, coat of arms, or other insignia of the 
    United States, or any State or local government, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN MARKS OF THE UNITED STATES AND STATE 
              AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

    Section 2(b) of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry 
out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other 
purposes'', approved July 6, 1946 (commonly referred to as the 
``Trademark Act of 1946''; 15 U.S.C. 1052(b)) is amended by inserting 
after ``simulation thereof'' the following: ``, except that this 
subsection shall not prevent the United States, or any State, 
municipality, county, political subdivision, or other governmental 
authority in the United States, from obtaining registration under this 
Act of any mark that consists of or comprises its own flag, coat of 
arms, or other official insignia''.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00469-CV

In re Samuel Hal Wade

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TOM GREEN COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Relator has filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We grant 

the motion and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Kelly

Filed: October 6, 2020
#### In re RULES OF PROBATE AND GUARDIANSHIP PROCEDURE

No. 36045.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 19, 1967.

William P. Simmons Jr., Miami, President and Harold R. Clark, Jacksonville, for The Florida Bar.

PER CURIAM.

Rule 5.050(b) is hereby amended to read as follows:

(b) Service of process in Florida may be made as provided in Chapter 48, Fla.Stats., or as in paragraph (c) hereof.

Rule 5.050(d) is hereby amended to read as follows:

(d) When an affidavit is filed showing that personal service is impractical, the court may order service by publication, in the manner provided by Chapter 49, Fla. Stats.

CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPUTER
MANAGEMENT SCIENCES,  INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF  OPERATIONS  AS OF AND FOR THE  THREE  MONTHS  ENDED  MARCH  31,  1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                    10,259,402
<SECURITIES>                                               6,346,473
<RECEIVABLES>                                             10,467,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          29,475,315
<PP&E>                                                    11,404,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                             2,451,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            49,869,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      4,374,610
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                     129,985
<OTHER-SE>                                                45,017,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              49,869,083
<SALES>                                                   16,229,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          16,229,154
<CGS>                                                     10,047,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             10,047,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             7,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            3,109,315
<INCOME-TAX>                                               1,187,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        1,922,315
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                               1,922,315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.13
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.4

Section 302 Certification

I, Roland O. Burns, certify that:

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Comstock Resources, Inc.; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|                      |   |   |   |   |   |                                  |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |   |   |   |   |
|                      |   |   |   |
| Date: April 30, 2018 |   |   |   | By:    |   | /s/ Roland O. Burns                   |
|                      |   |   |   |   |   | Roland O. Burns                       |
|                      |   |   |   |   |   | President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                      |   |   |   |   |   |                                  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPUTER
MANAGEMENT SCIENCES,  INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF  OPERATIONS  AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,  1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                    11,733,165
<SECURITIES>                                               4,491,891
<RECEIVABLES>                                             11,328,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          30,999,249
<PP&E>                                                    17,009,595
<DEPRECIATION>                                             2,840,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            57,165,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      4,005,568
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                     135,391
<OTHER-SE>                                                52,730,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              57,165,048
<SALES>                                                   51,934,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          51,934,107
<CGS>                                                     31,756,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             31,756,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            11,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           10,678,286
<INCOME-TAX>                                               4,085,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        6,593,286
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                               6,593,286
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.43
        



</TABLE>
#### ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY and Howell H. Abrams, Appellants, v. Hazel BURLISON and Ruth Marie Rouse, Appellees.

No. P-262.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1972.

Robert P. Games, of Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellants.

Wilmer H. Mitchell, of Holsberry, Emmanuel, Sheppard, Mitchell & Condon, Pensacola, for appellees.

SPECTOR, Chief Judge.

Appellant railroad seeks reversal of an adverse jury verdict in an action for damages sustained by appellees in a railroad crossing accident.

Appellant has raised a number of questions in respect of which it contends that error was committed in the trial court. Perhaps the most prominent issue raised rests on appellant’s contention that there was no evidence upon which the jury could find that the defendant railroad was negligent. We do not agree. Evidence was ad*281duced at the trial which would support a finding that the appellant had failed to observe signalization procedures conforming to the recommended practices for railroad highway grade crossing protection adopted by the Association of American Railroads. Evidence showed that there were three westbound traffic lanes approaching the railroad crossing where the accident occurred. Also in evidence was a bulletin of the Crossing Protection Subcommittee of the American Association of Railroads which set out the latest recommended practices for protection at railroad highway grade crossings. This bulletin recommends that a signal light cantilevered over the center lane be used when there are three or more lanes of traffic.

The evidence adduced concerning recommended signalization and defendant’s failure to provide the recommended signalization is, standing alone, sufficient evidence upon which the jury’s finding of negligence can rest. We do not hold that failure to conform one’s own practices with those generally recognized by an industry safety council or committee is negligence per se. We hold merely that evidence of noncompliance can be considered by the jury which may, but need not, find negligence as a result of the failure to follow a generally recognized safety rule.

This court has previously held that violation of safety rules was admissible in evidence to show what a reasonable and prudent person might provide, Scott v. Midyette-Moor, Inc., 221 So.2d 178 (Fla.App.1969); Alford v. Meyer, 201 So.2d 489 (Fla.App.1967).

We can assume that in promulgating the safety rule in question, the American Association of Railroads consulted with leading experts in the field of railroad highway crossings and garnered from their facts and recommendations an acceptable standard of conduct tending to preserve the safety of the highway using public, evolving standards with which an operating railroad could conform without unduly restricting its operational or fiscal capacities.

We have considered the remainder of the questions raised by appellant and find them to be substantially without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment reviewed herein is affirmed.

WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000949244
<NAME> ALTERNATE MARKETING NETWORKS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                       275
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,839
<PP&E>                                             753
<DEPRECIATION>                                     526
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,251
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,193
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,166)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,279
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,878
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    575
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                573
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       573
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>