alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7

                CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                             CNA FINANCIAL CAPITAL I

1.)      The name of the statutory trust (the "Trust") is:

                             CNA Financial Capital I

2.)      Article 2 of the Certificate of Trust of the Trust is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows:

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware are Chase
Bank USA, National Association, Attn: Worldwide Securities Services, 500 Stanton
Christiana Road, 3/Ops 4, Newark, Delaware 19713.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Amendment to Certificate of Trust of the Trust this 11th day of August, 2005.



                                           CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                           not in its individual capacity but
                                           solely as Trustee


                                           By: /s/ John J. Cashin
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:  John J. Cashin
                                               Title:  Vice President
DWQ Topics DWQ Programs & Units

Water Pollution Management Element

Bureau of Nonpoint

Pollution Control

Industrial Stormwater

Permitting Program

Municipal Stormwater

Regulation Program

Onsite Wastewater

Management Program

Discharge to Ground Water

Permitting Program

Stormwater Management

General Permits

Individual Permits 

Find Forms | Contact Us

Dental Facilities Onsite 

Wastewater Treatment 

Systems (K2)

This general permit authorizes those who 

discharge wastewater to the ground water 

from new or existing dental facilities using 

individual subsurface sewage disposal 

systems, i.e. “septic systems”, or Class V 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells. This permit was developed to remove 

dental amalgam prior to entering the waste stream by requiring dental facilities 

that generate amalgam waste to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

and install an amalgam separator. 

Contact: Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control, (609) 292-0407 

Related Documents, Publications and Forms 

 

Title Type Other Format PDF Format

NJPDES Form 1 

(pdf, 232Kb) Application 

NJPDES DGW 

Checklist: 

Individual and 

General 

Discharge to 

Ground Water 

Permits (pdf, 

37Kb) 

Guidance 

Final Permit (pdf, 

51Kb) Permit 

Supplemental 

Application Form 

(pdf, 24Kb) 

Application 

Program 

Information 

Sheet (pdf 197, 

Kb) 

Guidance 

K2 Certification 

Form Form 

department: njdep home | about dep | index by topic | programs/units | dep online

NJDEP-Division of Water Quality- Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control-Dental Facilitie... Page 1 of 2

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/k2.htm 5/6/2011
statewide: njhome | citizen | business | government | services A to Z | departments | search

Copyright © State of New Jersey, 2007 

Department of Environmental Protection 

P. O. Box 402 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 

Last Updated: April 20, 2011

NJDEP-Division of Water Quality- Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control-Dental Facilitie... Page 2 of 2

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/k2.htm 5/6/2011
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50183

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS CARLOS VAZQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-02-CR-1303-11)

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Luis Carlos Vazquez (Vazquez) appeals his

conviction for possession with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms

or more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He

argues that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily

waive his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. He

contends that the district court erred in failing to conduct an

adequate hearing under FED. R. CRIM. P. 44(c) to determine whether
2

any conflict of interest might exist or arise because of his

counsel’s joint representation of Vasquez and his co-defendant

brother. He argues further that the district court erred in

failing to conduct a second hearing pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P.

44(c) when a conflict became apparent during the sentencing

hearing.

Vazquez has failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of

interest in his counsel’s joint representation. See United States

v. Rico, 51 F.3d 495, 509 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the district

court did not err in allowing the same counsel to represent both

Vazquez and his brother; neither did it err in not conducting a

second hearing pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 44(c). See United States

v. Newell, 315 F.3d 510, 520 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v.

Lyons, 703 F.2d 815, 820 (5th Cir. 1983).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 226 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 226

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be 
                    issued in honor of Melvin Jones.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2001

  Mr. Frost (for himself, Mrs. Biggert, and Mr. Kolbe) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be 
                    issued in honor of Melvin Jones.

Whereas Melvin Jones was born on January 13, 1879, at Fort Thomas, Arizona, and 
        passed away on June 1, 1961, at the age of 82;

Whereas Melvin Jones founded the International Association of Lions Clubs in 
        1917 under the premise that such clubs shall not hold the financial 
        betterment of their members as their object;
Whereas the International Association of Lions Clubs, known as Lions 
        International, held its first convention in Dallas, Texas, in October, 
        1917, electing Melvin Jones Secretary;
Whereas Melvin Jones abandoned his job at an insurance agency to devote himself 
        full time to the Lions;
Whereas Lions International has 44,500 clubs with over 1.4 million members in 
        186 countries and geographical areas worldwide;
Whereas Lions Club members give their time, skills, and resources to encourage 
        charitable giving for the benefit of their communities, and for worthy 
        projects throughout the world;
Whereas Lions International has raised billions of dollars for various 
        charitable causes, including sight conservation, diabetes awareness, 
        cancer research, and disaster relief; and
Whereas for over 80 years, Lions International has benefited countless persons 
        by fulfilling the mission set out by Melvin Jones in the Association's 
        motto, We Serve: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the United States Postal Service should issue a postage 
        stamp in honor of Melvin Jones; and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend 
        to the Postmaster General that such a postage stamp be issued.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Buffets Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 22, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kerry A. Kramp, 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 
| | 
|
|
|
|
|
| | 
| | 
|
| | 
| | 
| | 
| |
Second Amendment to the Employment with Peter L. Lee



 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of August 12, 2005, between Chesapeake Corporation, a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), and Peter L. Lee (the “Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an amended and
restated Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated April 22, 2003, amended on January 3, 2005; and 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the Company and the Executive; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement;

  
 NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended in the
following respects: 
  
 Section 1 (b) is amended to read as
follows: 
  
 (b) The period described in paragraph (a) shall be
extended for an additional twelve months unless the Company, before each November 1 of any year, provides written notice to the Executive that the period will not be extended. The preceding sentence shall first be effective to extend the period
described in paragraph (a) until December 31, 2007, unless written notice to the contrary is provided to the Executive by the Company before November 1, 2005. 
  

Except as provided above, the terms of the Agreement, dated April 22, 2003, and amended January 3, 2005 shall remain in effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to
Executive Employment Agreement to be duly executed on its behalf and the Executive has duly executed this Second Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement, all as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	EXECUTIVE	 	CHESAPEAKE CORPORATION
		
	 /s/ Peter L. Lee

	 	 /s/ J.P. Causey Jr.


	Peter L. Lee	 	J.P. Causey Jr.
	 	 	 Executive Vice President, Secretary &
 General
Counsel
IV

House Calendar No. 137

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 347

[Report No. 107–399]

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers’

Memorial Service.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 12, 2002

Mr. LATOURETTE (for himself and Mr. COSTELLO) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

APRIL 11, 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National

Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL

4 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The National Fraternal Order of

6 Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution referred to as
2

•HCON 347 RH

1 the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to sponsor a public

2 event, the 21st annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial

3 Service (in this resolution jointly referred to as the

4 ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to honor the

5 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty dur6 ing 2001.

7 (b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on

8 May 15, 2002, or on such other date as the Speaker of

9 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules

10 and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

11 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed

13 by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

14 Board, the event shall be—

15 (1) free of admission charge and open to the

16 public; and

17 (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of

18 Congress.

19 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall

20 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities

21 incident to all activities associated with the event.

22 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

23 Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Cap24 itol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol

25 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and
3

•HCON 347 RH

1 other related structures and equipment, as may be re2 quired for the event.

3 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

4 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce5 ment of the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act

6 of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), con7 cerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations

8 on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions appli9 cable to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.
House Calendar No. 137

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 347

[Report No. 107–399]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the

National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.

APRIL 11, 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.**

 

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Polypore International, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Lynn Amos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 6, 2010 | /s/ Lynn Amos           |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      | Lynn Amos               |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Sarah T. Reilly, Appellant, *v.*Albert Simonson, Respondent.

*Reilly*v. Simonson, 154 App. Div. 921, appeal dismissed.

(Argued January 27, 1916;

decided February 4, 1916.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 16, 1913, reversing -a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial ■ in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while riding in a passenger elevator maintained by defendant and operated by *637his servant. The- question was as to whether the finding of negligence by the jury was supported by the evidence.

*Harford T. Marshall for*appellant.

*Theodore H. Lord*and *Lyman A. Spalding*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The appellant presents for our consideration a doubtful and serious question which we are unable to determine, for the reason that the form of the order does not enable us to assume jurisdiction. *(Caponigri*v. *Altieri,*164 N. Y. 476; *Wright*v. *Smith,*209 N. Y. 249.)

The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.
50015.

#### AMERICAN INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. BROWN et al.

Stolz, Judge.

The insured brought an action against his fire insurance carrier for breach of his policy by failure to pay the increased coverage benefits provided by an endorsement to the policy. The policy provided that "[n]o permission affecting this insurance shall exist, or waiver of any provision be valid, unless granted herein or expressed in writing added hereto,” and that the insurance was provided "[i]n consideration of the provisions and stipulations herein or added hereto and of the *35premium above specified (or specified in endorsementís) and made a part hereof) . .

Argued January 13, 1975

Decided January 30, 1975

Rehearing denied February 19, 1975.

*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, E. A. Simpson, Jr., William F. Clark,*for appellant.

*Joseph E. Loggins,*for appellees.

" 'Conditions which enter into the validity of a contract of insurance at its inception may be waived by the agent, and are waived if so intended, although they remain in the policy when delivered.’ *Mechanics & Traders Ins. Co. v. Mutual Real Estate &c. Assn.,*98 Ga. 262 (25 *SE 457); Johnson v. Aetna Ins. Co.,*123 Ga. 404 (51 SE 339); *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hale,*177 Ga. 632 (170 SE 875).” *Chester v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co.,*121 Ga. App. 599, 600 (174 SE2d 582).

The trial judge was authorized to find from the showing on the motions for summary judgment of both sides, that the increased coverage endorsement attached to and became a part of the original policy; that, although the insured had not paid the additional premium by the effective date of the endorsement or obtained any written waiver, the agent, by not having insisted thereon either on this or on previous occasions, waived such payment and in effect extended credit to the insured; and that, in the absence of a provision in the policy that the premium payment was an express condition precedent to coverage, the unilateral change endorsement attempting to "return the original limits under the policy” was not effective on the date of the loss because of the agent’s failure to comply with the provisions of Code Ann. § 56-2430 (Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 671, as amended) for cancellation.

Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and in granting a partial summary judgment for liability alone for the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 241 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 241

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that trained service dogs should 
 be recognized for their service in the rescue and recovery efforts in 
    the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States on 
                          September 11, 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2001

  Mr. Gilman submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Congress that trained service dogs should 
 be recognized for their service in the rescue and recovery efforts in 
    the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States on 
                          September 11, 2001.

Whereas thousands of Americans and citizens of other nations perished in the 
        terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001;
Whereas many police officers, firemen, and other emergency rescue workers also 
        perished or were injured in their heroic efforts to save people at the 
        site of the World Trade Center, in New York, New York, and also worked 
        in the rescue and recovery efforts at the Pentagon outside Washington, 
        D.C., and at the site of the airline crash in Pennsylvania;
Whereas the rescue operations also involved more than 300 trained service dogs 
        that performed rescue and recovery duties, particularly in New York 
        City;
Whereas these dogs performed their duties at serious risk to their health and 
        welfare and suffered injuries during the rescue and recovery process; 
        and
Whereas these dogs were an important component of the larger rescue and recovery 
        efforts: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) more than 300 specially trained rescue and recovery 
        dogs were instrumental in the emergency response operations in 
        New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in the aftermath of the 
        terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001;
            (2) these dogs have unique sensory abilities that allow 
        them to perform a set of tasks that cannot be conducted as 
        efficiently by people;
            (3) these dogs, working in tandem with their handlers, 
        endured exhaustion, exposure to noxious fumes and active fires, 
        risks from falling debris, and other hazards during the rescue 
        and recovery efforts; and
            (4) the Nation owes a debt of gratitude for the service 
        given by these dogs.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KAYREE REID,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 438 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.