alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.19


                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                      RESTATED EXECUTIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT
                                       OF
                                 EARL McPHERSON


         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED  EXECUTIVE  SERVICES AGREEMENT OF
EARL  McPHERSON is made as of January 1, 1999,  by an among ESSEX  SAVINGS BANK,
FSB and ESSEX FIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION (collectively the "Employers") and EARL
McPHERSON (the "Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS,  the  Employers  and  the  Employee  entered  into a  Restated
Executive  Services  Agreement  dated as of January  1, 1998 (the  "Agreement"),
which Agreement was subsequently amended; and

         WHEREAS,  Employers and Employee  desire to further amend the Agreement
to clarify the definition of a "change in control."

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  for good and valuable  consideration,  the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged,  the Employers and the Employee agree to amend the
Employment Agreement as follows:

         1. The last  sentence of Section 11(b) of the  Employment  Agreement is
amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  Any  provision  herein  to the  contrary  notwithstanding,  no
                  Change  in  Control  shall be deemed to occur as a result of :
                  (1)  any  transaction  prior  to  January  1,  1999;  (2)  any
                  purchase,  transfer or other  disposition  of the Series B and
                  Series  C  preferred  shares  of  Bancorp;  (3) any  exercise,
                  conversion,  transfer of warrants or options of Bancorp  which
                  were issued prior to 1996 (and any such  exercise,  conversion
                  or transfer  shall be  disregarded  in  determining  whether a
                  Change in Control has  occurred);  and/or (4) any  issuance by
                  Bancorp of additional  shares or other  securities on or after
                  January 1, 1999.



<PAGE>



         2. Except as provided  above,  the  Agreement  is hereby  ratified  and
confirmed in all respects.

                                 ESSEX SAVINGS BANK, FSB



                                 By:  /s/ Gene D. Ross
                                    -----------------------------
                                          Its:  President


                                 ESSEX FIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION



                                 By:  /s/ Gene D. Ross
                                    -----------------------------
                                          Its:  Chairman/Director



                                 /s/ EARL McPHERSON
                                 --------------------------------
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of K.L. and A.L., Children, And Concerning, M.L. and H.L., Respondents-Appellants.

No. 83CA0941.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

April 5, 1984.

William Thiebaut, Jr., Sp. Asst. County Atty., Pueblo, for petitioner-appellee.

Wayne R. Bartley, Pueblo, for guardian ad litem for children.

Donald J. Banner, Pueblo, for respondents-appellants.

BABCOCK, Judge.

In this dependency and neglect action, respondents M. and H.L., appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion for leave to examine their children, K.L. and A.L., as witnesses. We conclude that there is no final judgment within the meaning of *536C.A.R. 1(a)(1). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

In July 1981, K.L. and A.L. were adjudicated dependent and neglected, and in December 1981, a decree of disposition was entered awarding custody to the Pueblo County Department of Social Services. In July 1982, an order was entered adopting a treatment plan. A social services report was filed in December 1982 to aid a scheduled judicial review of the children’s out-of-home placement and to evaluate the respondents’ progress under the treatment plan.

The respondents filed objections to the report together with a motion for leave to examine the children regarding the report. The motion was denied after hearing, and thereafter, on June 1,1983, without further hearing, the trial court entered its order approving the report of the department of social services which effectively continued the decree of disposition awarding custody of the children to the department of social services. This appeal followed.

Delinquency proceedings are subject to the finality requirements of C.A.R. 1(a)(1). *People in Interest of D.H.,*37 Colo.App. 544, 552 P.2d 29 (1976), *aff’d,*192 Colo. 542, 561 P.2d 5 (1977). A final judgment is one which ends the particular action in which it is entered leaving nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to determine completely the rights of the parties involved in the proceeding. *People in Interest of D.H., supra.*

The issue on appeal arose at a post-dispositional phase of the proceeding, *see*§ 19-3-111, C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), and in the context of the statutorily prescribed periodic judicial review of out-of-home placements. Sections 19-3-109(4), 19—1—108(2.5) and 19-3-115(4)(a), C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). While this proceeding is important to the parties, the order entered in connection herewith did not change any of the rights of the parties and is thus interlocutory in nature. *See People in Interest of D.H., supra.*

Appeal dismissed.

BERMAN and KELLY, JJ., concur.
S. Con. Res. 71 Agreed to April 11, 2000

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

Concurrent Resolution

Whereas deliberations on establishing a ‘‘Free Trade Area of the

Americas’’ (FTAA) will help facilitate greater cooperation and

understanding on trade barrier reduction throughout the Americas;

Whereas the trade ministers of 34 countries of the Western Hemisphere agreed in 1998 to create a permanent Secretariat in order

to support negotiations on establishing the FTAA;

Whereas the FTAA Secretariat will employ persons to provide

logistical, administrative, archival, translation, publication, and

distribution support for the negotiations;

Whereas the FTAA Secretariat will be funded by a combination

of local resources and institutional resources from a tripartite

committee consisting of the Inter-American Development Bank

(IDB), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the United

Nations Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC);

Whereas the temporary site of the FTAA Secretariat will be located

in Miami, Florida, from 1999 until February 28, 2001, at which

point the Secretariat will rotate to Panama City, Panama, until

February 28, 2003, and then rotate to Mexico City, Mexico, until

February 28, 2005;

Whereas by 2005 the FTAA Secretariat will have international

institution status providing jobs and tremendous economic benefits to its host city;

Whereas a permanent site for the FTAA Secretariat after 2005

will likely be selected from among the 3 temporary host cities;

Whereas the city of Miami, Miami-Dade County, and the State

of Florida have long served as the gateway for trade with the

Caribbean and Latin America;

Whereas trade between the city of Miami, Florida, and the countries

of Latin America and the Caribbean totaled $36,793,000,000 in

1998;

Whereas the Miami-Dade area and the State of Florida possess

the necessary infrastructure, local resources, and culture necessary for the FTAA Secretariat’s permanent site;

Whereas the United States possesses the world’s largest economy

and is the leading proponent of trade liberalization throughout

the world; and

Whereas the city of Miami, Florida, the State of Florida, and the

United States are uniquely situated among other competing locations to host the ‘‘Brussels of the Western Hemisphere’’: Now,

therefore, be it
S. Con. Res. 71—2

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the President

should direct the United States representative to the ‘‘Free Trade

Area of the Americas’’ (FTAA) negotiations to use all available

means in order to secure Miami, Florida, as the permanent site

of the FTAA Secretariat after February 28, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### Johnny HOLLINS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 74-2190

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 14, 1974.

*1374Ed Idar, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellant.

Donald B. McFall, Houston, Tex. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appel-lee.

Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir.; *see*Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of N. *Y.*et al. (5th Cir. 1970), 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

When this case was previously before this court, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellee voluntarily waived his objections to standing trial in jail garb. Hollins v. Beto, 467 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972). On remand the State of Texas stipulated that no such waiver had voluntarily been made, but took issue with any retroactive application of our trial-in-jail-garb rulings in Brooks v. Texas, 381 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1967) and Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1971). The State also contended that any error in Hollins’ trial because of his clothing was harmless. See, Smith v. Estelle, 498 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1974).

The district court correctly applied *Brooks*and *Hernandez*to this action. Williams v. Estelle, 500 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974). The court also found that this error was not, beyond any reasonable doubt, harmless. In light of the total record .developed at this trial, we cannot say that his determination was clearly erroneous. The burning issue was identification. Although several witnesses identified Hollins as the culprit, their testimony is not so compelling as to leave this court with an abiding conviction that the district judge reached the wrong result.

On remand the State should be accorded a reasonable time within which to retry petitioner.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                    5,335
<SECURITIES>                                739
<RECEIVABLES>                               180
<ALLOWANCES>                                 13
<INVENTORY>                                  38
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          6,578
<PP&E>                                      204
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            6,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,184
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   2
<COMMON>                                    186
<OTHER-SE>                                5,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              6,782
<SALES>                                   1,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          1,303
<CGS>                                       359
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          4,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (3,927)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (3,927)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             (3,927)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.23)


</TABLE>
#### In re Richard John MULLEN.

No. 86-CK-2530.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

IN RE: Babst, Loretto M. — Other; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number CA-6381; Parish of Orleans Orleans Parish Juvenile Court Div. “C” Number 86-16904-Y.

Granted. The orders and the judgments of the courts below are vacated; the case is remanded to the juvenile court to fix relator’s fees and then render judgment.

MARCUS & LEMMON, JJ.,

dissent.

The trial court retains jurisdiction over all matters reviewable on an appeal. La.C.C.P. Art. 2088. Relator’s claim for fees and costs has not been tried or decided, and the claim will not be barred by res judicata by the elapsing of the period for appealing the dismissal of the custody action.

WATSON, J., dissents. All relator has to do is file a motion to fix her fee in the trial court.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.1

   In connection with the Annual Report of Dynamic Oil and Gas, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wayne J.
Babcock, President and Chief Executive 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, 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/ Wayne J. Babcock




Wayne J. Babcock
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 19, 2002
exh101






EXHIBIT 10.1 December 2020  Andrew Cogan  New York, NY  Dear Andrew,  It is my pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2021 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program  with a target incentive amount equal to $ ____________ (the “Target Amount”).   In 2021 we need to continue to drive our digital investments supporting our clients wherever they may live or work and  however they may choose to transact with Knoll and our constellation of design driven brands. With a vaccine on the  horizon we also need to partner with our commercial clients as they prepare to return to work, helping them to envision  what the new workplace will look like.   As leaders in 2021 we must continue to focus on improving our profitability, gaining market share, targeting under- penetrated markets, and building our constellation of design driven brands.  Your 2021 incentive payout will be based on your achievement of your individual goals and Knoll’s achievement of its  2021 EBITDA plan as follows:   SHORT TERM INCENTIVE  2021 Management Incentive Target: $ _____________  -If Knoll achieves at least eighty percent (80%) of its 2021 EBITDA plan, you will qualify for a total target incentive  payout of fifty percent (50%) of your Target. -If Knoll achieves at least ninety percent (90%) of its 2021 EBITDA plan, you will qualify for a total target incentive  payout of ninety percent (90%) of your Target. -If Knoll achieves at least one hundred percent (100%) of its 2021 EBITDA plan, you will qualify for a total target  incentive payout of one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of your Target. -If Knoll achieves at least one hundred twenty percent (120%) of its 2021 EBITDA plan, you will qualify for a total  target incentive payout of one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of your Target. This award is subject to the approval of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc.  Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of  Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll’s  performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance but such award  cannot exceed two hundred percent (200%) of the target amount in any event. You must be employed by Knoll on the  date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.   I have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2021 and look forward to the opportunity to present  you with your award in early 2022. Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.   Sincerely,   ____________
#### James Maurice FRAZIER, Sr., et al. v. Oliver Beckwith FRAZIER, et al.

No. 86-C-2317.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Frazier, James Maurice Sr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18147-CA; Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 84-129.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 229.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 173 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 173

 To authorize representation of the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
    in the case of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate Committee on Armed 
                               Services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 4, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize representation of the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
    in the case of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate Committee on Armed 
                               Services.

Whereas, in the case of Philip Tinsley III v. Senate Committee on Armed 
        Services, Civil Action No. 99-951-A, pending in the United States 
        District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the plaintiff has 
        sued the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to defend Senate committees in civil actions: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services in the case of Philip Tinsley 
III v. Senate Committee on Armed Services.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7294]


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

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 April 20. 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. PSB Holdings, Inc., Wausau, Wisconsin; to acquire 100 percent of 
the voting shares of Marathon State Bank, Marathon, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 22, 
2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-7294 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03561

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03561\03561_Checklist.xlsx EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03561\03561_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03561\03561_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03561\03561_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03561\03561_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03561\03561_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03561\03561_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03561\03561_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03561\Certification Statement_03561.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03561\Correspondence\030111 response\03561_Correspondence_030111.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 03561\Correspondence\030111 response\03561_Follow up Questions.xlsx Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 03561\Correspondence\030111 response\03561_Follow-Up Questions_II.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 03561\Correspondence\030111 response\Part C_5.0.commentECKERT_AshHandlingDATA2.21.11.pdf Plant submitted survey file

x 03561\Correspondence\03561_Correspondence.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

03561\Supporting Documentation\03561_EckertAerial map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03561\Supporting Documentation\03561_EckertWaterBalance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03561\Supporting Documentation\3561EckertWWT.1Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Michael STOKES v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 91-KA-0174.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 23, 1993.

Melvin B. Cooper, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal No. 7150 from Judgment dated Jan. 7, 1991, Robert Walter Bailey, Ruling Judge, Clarke County Circuit Court.

Before PRATHER, P.J. and BANKS and McRAE, JJ.

Affirmed.

HAWKINS, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ., concur.
#### Sheldon Irwin GOLDFARB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4-86-1080.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 18, 1987.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Charles D. Peters, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert S. Jaegers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. We note that appellant pled not guilty. Therefore we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to correct the order granting probation and fixing terms thereof to show appellant was found guilty by a jury.

AFFIRMED but REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.