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



Exhibit 10.14
 FIRST CALIFORNIA BANK
SPLIT DOLLAR AGREEMENT
 (ADDENDUM A TO THE FIRST CALIFORNIA BANK SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT)
  INTRODUCTION
  AGREEMENT
  Article 1  GENERAL DEFINITIONS
  Insured
 Insurer
 Normal Retirement Age
 Normal Retirement Date
 Policy
 Salary Continuation Agreement
 Termination for Cause
    Termination of Employment
 1




---



##### 



Article 2
Policy Ownership/Interests
 Company Ownership
 Executives Interest
 Option to Purchase
 Comparable Coverage
 ARTICLE 3  PREMIUMS
 Premium Payment
 3.2 Economic Benefit . The Company shall determine the economic benefit attributable to
the Executive based on the amount of the current term rate for the Executives age multiplied by
the aggregate death benefit payable to the Executives beneficiary. The current term rate is the
minimum amount required to be imputed under Revenue Rulings 64-328 and 66-110, or any subsequent
applicable authority.
 Imputed Income.
 Article 4
Assignment
 The Executive may assign without consideration all of the Executives interests in the
Policy and in this Agreement to any person, entity or trust. In the event the Executive transfers
all of the Executives interest in the Policy, then all of the Executives interest in the Policy
and in the Agreement
 2




---



##### 



shall be vested in the Executives transferee, who shall be substituted as a
party hereunder and the Executive shall have no further interest in the Policy or in this
Agreement.
 Article 5
Insurer
  Article 6
Claims and Review Procedure
 Claims Procedure
 Initiation  Written Claim
 Timing of Company Response
 Notice of Decision
      6.2 Review Procedure . If the Company denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall
have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Company of the denial, as follows:
 6.2.1 Initiation  Written Request . To initiate the review, the claimant, within 60 days
after receiving the Companys notice of denial, must file with the Company a written request
for review.
 6.2.2 Additional Submissions  Information Access . The claimant shall then have the
opportunity to submit written comments, documents, records and other information relating to
 3




---



##### 



the claim. The Company shall also provide the claimant, upon request and free of charge,
reasonable access to, and copies of, all document, records and other information relevant (as
defined in applicable ERISA regulations) to the claimants claim for benefits.
 Considerations on Review
 Timing of Company Response
 Notice of Decision
     Article 7
Amendments and Termination
  Article 8
Miscellaneous
 Binding Effect
 No Guarantee of Employment.
 Applicable Law
 Reorganization.
 4




---



##### 



Notice
 Entire Agreement.
 Administration
     Named Fiduciary
  EXECUTIVE:
    
    
    
    COMPANY:FIRST CALIFORNIA BANK/s/ Romolo Santarosa
    
    
    
    By
    
    /s/ John W. BirchfieldRomolo Santarosa
    
    
    
    John W. Birchfield, Chairman
 5
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 5 , 2013.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00744

- CV

IN RE MITSUHIRO NOMU RA AND NADINE MAHEAL ANI NOMURA , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 42399



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 26, 2013, relator s Mitsuhiro Nomura and Nadine Mahealani Nomura filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this c ourt to compel the Honorable Angela Ellis, a ssociate j udge of the 315th District Court of Harris County
, to transfer venue in their petition for adoption from Harris County2

to Waller County

. Because this court lacks jurisdiction over an associate judge, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the
Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge within the district of the court of appeals, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the ju risdiction of the court of appeals. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. We do not have jurisdiction over an associate judge. See In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , 348 S.W.3d 492, 495 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding); In re J.W.B. , No. 14

- 1 2

- 00410

- CV, 2012 WL 1695208, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is order dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and Donovan.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5469]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March 
8, 2012 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
March 8, 2012 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
A litigation matter;
An adjudicatory matter; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

     Dated: March 1, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5469 Filed 3-2-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

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 of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Joseph B. Leonard, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |     |  |                                     
|------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|March 9, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Joseph B.
Leonard               
|              |  |     |  | Joseph B. Leonard                   
|              |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lorenzano Cruz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered April 24, 1989, convicting defendant after jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 3 to 6 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Police officers, responding to a radio run of a prior armed robbery which had occurred two days earlier, were informed *276by the victim that one of the robbers was inside his building. As they spoke, defendant exited, and the victim immediately identified defendant as one of the robbers. As police approached defendant, he reached into his jacket pocket. The arresting officer testified that in view of the complaint of an armed robbery, he feared for his safety, and immediately reached in and extracted a loaded gun from defendant’s pocket. Twenty-five vials of cocaine were subsequently recovered from defendant’s person during a precinct search.

Police officers have a right to rely upon information furnished by private citizens who report crimes that they have witnessed or which have been perpetrated against them *(People v Vasquez,*162 AD2d 153, *lv denied*76 NY2d 867). Under these circumstances, we presume the credibility of the citizen informant, who was a victim *(see, People v Hicks,*38 NY2d 90, 92-93; *People v Cruz,*149 AD2d 151) and conclude that the police acted with reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed *(People v Vasquez, supra).*

Defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s conduct during cross-examination of the defendant is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]). If we were to review, we would note that defendant’s voluntary reference to being stopped on the basis of an accusation of robbery, opened the door to the prosecutor’s questions on cross-examination. *(See, People v McCullough,*141 AD2d 856, 858, *lv dismissed*73 NY2d 924.)

Defendant also failed to preserve his present objection to the prosecutor’s comment on summation which referred to defendant’s admission concerning the unrelated robbery, and we decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. Defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s comment on summation which insinuated that defendant sold drugs, does not warrant reversal, in view of the fact that defendant’s objection was sustained and the court issued curative instructions, which we presume were followed by the jury *(see, People v Rodriguez,*103 AD2d 121). Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.
Attachment P:

Endorser Agreement Form
EPA WasteWise Endorser Agreement

The EPA WasteWise Program encourages organizations to voluntarily reduce waste and conserve

environmental resources while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Partners benefit from reduced waste 

generation by saving money and being recognized as environmental stewards in the United States. 

Endorsers promote the program to prospective organizations who may wish to enroll in the program as 

either Partners or Endorsers.

With this agreement, my organization joins EPA's WasteWise Program as an Endorser and agrees to: 

Submit goals for Endorser activities within 60 days of registering. 

Report on Endorser activities and progress towards goals annually. 

Use the WasteWise logo in a manner that is consistent with the use guidelines, available at

www.epa.gov/waste/partnerships/wastewise/guidelines.htm 

In return, EPA commits to provide:

Public recognition, by recognizing Endorsers on our website. 

Endorser support and communications assistance. 

An online reporting and data management system. 

The opportunity to compete for WasteWise Program Awards. 

General Terms:

Either party can terminate this agreement at any time without prior notification and with no 

further obligation. EPA will not comment publicly regarding the withdrawal of Endorsers. 

Endorser agrees that the activities it undertakes connected with this voluntary agreement are not 

intended to provide services to the federal government and that the Endorser will not seek 

compensation from a federal agency. 

Endorser agrees that it will not claim or imply that its participation in the WasteWise Program 

constitutes EPA approval or support of anything other than its participation in the program and 

will not make statements or imply that EPA supports the Endorser or the purchase or sale of the 

Endorser’s products and services or the views of the Endorser’s organization. 

EPA may publish information about the Endorser’s program accomplishments, but will honor all 

requests to keep the Endorser’s reported information/data confidential. 

EPA may use the Endorser’s logo in selected marketing materials. This added benefit is available 

only to Endorsers that have received an award for their achievements.

EPA may periodically revise eligibility requirements. 

Termination Clause:

Failure to comply with any of the terms of this Endorser agreement can result in its termination 

and cessation of access to the benefits of the program, including use of the WasteWise Re-TRAC 

system and the program logo.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1824 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1824

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on lug bottom boots for use 
                           in fishing waders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2009

  Mr. Baucus introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on lug bottom boots for use 
                           in fishing waders.

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

SECTION 1. LUG BOTTOM BOOTS FOR USE IN FISHING WADERS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.85 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to lug bottom boots for use in 
fishing waders) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting 
``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Federal Insurance Company, Appellant, v Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on May 14, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment in its favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This is an action to determine whether the plaintiff or the defendant is responsible for the second $500,000 of a $1,000,000 contribution to the settlement of a Kings County negligence action *(Dorsky v Norman,*Kings County Index No. 9439/84). The action had been commenced after the infant plaintiff was severely injured in an accident involving a tractor trailer. The defendants were the driver, his employer, and the company that leased the tractor trailer to the employer.

Defendant insured the driver’s employer for automobile liability to a maximum of $500,000, and also provided a general liability policy that excluded automobile liability. Nevertheless, there was a contractual liability endorsement that did not exclude automobile liability.

Although the driver’s employer had an obligation to indemnify the leasing company for liability, there is no indication in the record that any portion of the disputed $500,000 represented liability to the leasing company under contract. Any liability of the employer to the leasing company was obviated when the leasing company waived its cross-claim against the employer on the settlement of *Dorsky (supra).*Accordingly, the settlement amount solely represents the employer’s liability to the *Dorsky*plaintiffs, which does not arise from contract. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted, since the defendant demonstrated that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it would be liable for the second $500,000 under its contractual liability endorsement *(cf., Allstate Ins. Co. v Riggio,*125 AD2d 515). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 March 4, 2022For the talking circle: Celebrating a journey, looking to the future
        In the Department of the Air Force, the Indigenous Nations Equality Team (INET) is working to further that sharing and increase awareness of our cultures and what we bring with us when we become part of the Air Force and Space Force.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
EXHIBIT
      32.1








CERTIFICATION





I,
      Edward
      B. Meyercord, III, Chief Executive Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc. have
      reviewed Talk America Holdings, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual
      period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) and, based on the inquiries I have
      made or caused to be made in the fulfillment of my responsibilities as the
      Chief
      Executive Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc., I hereby certify
      that:





(i)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)
      the
      information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of Talk America Holdings,
      Inc.











/s/
      Edward B. Meyercord, III


Edward
      B.
      Meyercord, III


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      27,
      2006
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 21


                        MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<S>                                            <C>                                             <C>
                                                Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.
                                                t/k/a Star Holding Company    50%

Meadowbrook, Inc.                               American Indemnity Insurance Co., Ltd.           Crest Financial Corporation
                                                Star Insurance Co. (50%)

Association Self Insurance                                                                       American Highway Carriers
Services, Inc.                                  Savers Property and Casualty                     Association
                                                Insurance Co.

Meadowbrook Intermediaries, Inc.                                                                 Liberty Premium Finance, Inc.
                                                Southeastern Holding Corp.
Meadowbrook Risk Management, Inc.                                                                Interline Insurance Services, Inc.
                                                Ameritrust Insurance Corporation
Meadowbrook of Nevada, Inc.                                                                      Commercial Carriers Insurance
                                                Williamsburg National Insurance Co.              Agency, Inc.
Meadowbrook Insurance Agency, Inc.
Agency, Inc.                                    Preferred Insurance Company, Ltd.
                                                  (Bermuda) (94.1%)
Meadowbrook Risk Management, Ltd.
 (Barbados)

Meadowbrook Risk Management, Limited
(Bermuda) (80%)

Meadowbrook International, Ltd.

Florida Preferred Administrators, Inc.

Case Management Resources, Inc.

Meadowbrook of Florida, Inc.

Meadowbrook Insurance, Inc.

Preferred Insurance Agency, Inc.

TPA Insurance Agency, Inc.

Meadowbrook of Canada, Ltd.

Market Place Resources, Inc.
</TABLE>