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

 

EXHIBIT A

VOTING AGREEMENT

 

The undersigned director of FCB Bancorp, Inc. (“FCB”) hereby agrees in his individual capacity as a shareholder to vote his shares of FCB Common Stock that are registered in his personal name and not in a fiduciary capacity (and agrees to use his reasonable efforts to cause all additional shares of FCB Common Stock owned jointly by him with any other person or by his spouse or over which he has voting influence or control to be voted, other than shares held in a fiduciary capacity) in favor of the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between MainSource Financial Group, Inc. and FCB, dated December 19, 2016 (the “Agreement”). In addition, the undersigned director hereby agrees not to make any transfers of shares of FCB with the purpose of avoiding his agreements set forth in the preceding sentence and agrees to cause any transferee of such shares to abide by the terms of this Voting Agreement. The undersigned director is entering into this Voting Agreement solely in his capacity as an individual shareholder and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Voting Agreement, nothing in this Voting Agreement is intended or shall be construed to require any of the undersigned, in his capacity as a director of FCB, to act or fail to act in accordance with his fiduciary duties in such director capacity. Furthermore, the undersigned, by signing this agreement, makes no agreement or understanding herein in his capacity as a director of FCB. Notwithstanding any contrary provision herein, this Voting Agreement shall be effective from the date hereof and shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon the earliest of (a) the consummation of the Merger (as defined in the Agreement); (b) the termination of the Agreement in accordance with its terms; or (c) the taking of such action whereby a majority of FCB’s Board of Directors, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Section 5.06 of the Agreement, withdraws its favorable recommendation of the Agreement to its shareholders. This Voting Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.

 

Dated this 19th day of December, 2016.

 

1
12/26/17; Last reviewed/formatted May 2023 Page 1 of 1

Pale Cyst Nematode Infested Field Deregulation Protocol (if remaining in host crop production)

Are viable

cysts

detected?

Yes, return

to step 2.

No, advance

to step 3.

Step 2:

Infestation foci are sampled annually at

the rate stated in Step 1. If undergoing

eradication treatments, sampling

occurs after each treatment. Cysts

found in soil samples undergo viability

testing with a live/dead staining assay.

Step 3:

Infestation foci are sampled at the

rate stated in Step 1 to collect

additional cysts. Cyst viability is

assessed using a greenhouse

bioassay method (equivalent to three

consecutive susceptible potato

crops). Alternatively, an in -field

bioassay method can be used (three

consecutive crops of susceptible

potatoes grown in infestation foci or

over entire area of the field).

Are viable

cysts

detected?

Are viable

cysts

detected?

Yes, return to

step 2.

No, advance

to step 4.

Step 4:

The field is eligible to return to host

crop production (susceptible

potatoes). Steam sanitation

requirement is lifted; pressure -

washing requirement remains in

place. The field is sampled following

harvest of the next three host crops

(full field, fixed grid pattern, 20,000

cc soil per acre sampling rate,

equivalent to approximately 50

pounds soil per acre). Host crops

may be grown consecutively or in a

crop rotation.

Yes, return

to step 2.

No

The field is eligible for full deregulation

if no viable cysts are detected after

each of three host crops are harvested.

Step 1: APHIS conducts an initial survey (full field, fixed grid pattern 80,000 cc of soil per acre

sampling rate, equivalent to approximately 200 pounds of soil per acre).

- Sampling results (number of cysts per sample) are used to map the relative distribution and

population of cysts in the field. Infestation foci are located.

- Initial cyst viability is assessed using a live/dead staining assay.

- The field may undergo a series of optional PCN Program sponsored eradication treatments.

Summary: A field is declared positive (infested) for pale cyst nematode (PCN). Pressure washing

and steam sanitation requirements are implemented for all equipment in contact with field soil.

Additional regulatory requirements are implemented for movement of commodities from the field.

Growing PCN host crops (susceptible potatoes or host weed species) is prohibited until two viability

testing methods (live/dead staining assay and bioassay) are negative for viable PCN. To become

deregulated, the field must complete a stepwise series of tests to demonstrate that the infestation has

been fully eradicated.
# C_2018161EN.01006302.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/63

---

Action brought on 8 March 2018 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-168/18)

(2018/C 161/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the provisions of Articles 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2016/2231/CFSP, and 2b(1)(b) of Regulation [No] 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-163/18, Amisi Kumba v Council.

Amisi Kumba

Council

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,532
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    337,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           3,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        218,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405,749
<SALES>                                        205,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,752
<CGS>                                          174,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,756
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    810
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5805
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
        

</TABLE>
21103

#### Malang v. Castillo

Affirmed
July 28, 1997

19498

#### Amit v. Y.Y. Valley Corp.

Affirmed
#### State v. Soares

18538

4/30/97

Vacated and Remanded
# C_2019246EN.01002301.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/23

---

Order of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity (d:ternity)

(Case T-609/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the EU word mark d:ternity - Earlier word mark iTernity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity before the action was brought - Invalidation of the contested decision - No interest in bringing proceedings - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 246/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fujifilm Recording Media (Kleve, Germany) (represented by: R.-D. Härer, C. Schultze, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: iTernity GmbH (Freiburg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2018 (Case R 2324/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between iTernity and Fujifilm Recording Media.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 22

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

1.         Fonix Systems  Corporation,  a Utah corporation,  wholly owned by the
           Company (merged into Fonix Corporation effective September 1, 1999)

2.         Fonix/AcuVoice, Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by the Company

3.         Fonix/Articulate,  Inc.,  a Utah  corporation,  wholly  owned  by the
           Company (merged into Fonix Corporation effective September 1, 1999)

4.         Fonix/Papyrus, Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by the Company
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Financial Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the Partnership), hereby
certifies that the Partnerships Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013 (the Amendment) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), as amended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                                                                 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 6, 2013 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Stephen J. Neyland                                                                                                                          
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Stephen J. Neyland
Vice President, Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)
Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. (as delegate of the General Partner)
#### Miller v. Mikami

20556

8/19/98

Reversed & Remanded
**EXHIBIT31.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James G. Thomasch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PLC SystemsInc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b) [Not Applicable];

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
| Date: August 13, 2007 |   | /s/ James G. Thomasch   |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                  |   | James G. Thomasch       |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Docket Number FAA-2013-0687

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Kiewit Building Group Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W911KB-12-C-001 l ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59522

Michael A. Branca, Esq. Jesse S. Keene, Esq.

Peckar & Abramson P.C. Washington, DC Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Carl F. Olson, Esq. Kyle B. Davis, Esq.

EngineerTrial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 29 June 2015

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59522, Appeal ofKiewit Building Group Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
# C_2020390EN.01000702.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2020 — Edison SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-121/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative mark including the word element EDISON - Interpretation of the terms in the heading of a class of the Nice Classification and in the accompanying alphabetical list)

(2020/C 390/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Edison SpA (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto and D. Martucci, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Edison SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Edison SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOVEMBER 3, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 05-14686 & 06-12082

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-00896-CV-T-24-TGW

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER PLANS, INC., 

Plaintiff 

 Counter-Defendant 

Appellee, 

versus 

LEADING EDGE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., 

DefendantCounter-Claimant 

Cross-Claimant 

Appellant. 

_______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

 (November 3, 2006) 
Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, United States District Judge for the Southern District *

of Florida, sitting by designation.

2

Before BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges, and RYSKAMP, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Leading Edge Insurance Group, Inc., appeals the district court’s

denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict

holding Leading Edge liable for fraud and violating the New Jersey Consumer

Fraud Act (NJCFA). Leading Edge also appeals the district court’s award of

attorneys’ fees to Appellee, Professional Employer Plans, Inc. (PEP), the denial of

its request for attorneys’ fees for the civil theft claim, and the denial of its motion

for remittitur.

In its opinion dated August 2, 2005, the district court considered the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and denied Leading Edge’s

motion for judgment as a matter of law for the fraud claim and NJCFA claim and

motion for remittitur. The district court awarded PEP attorneys’ fees and costs

under the NJCFA because the jury found Leading Edge committed an

unconscionable commercial practice. The court also found that Professional

Employer Plans presented substantial support for its civil theft claim and therefore

refused to award attorneys’ fees or costs to Leading Edge for that claim. 

We have heard oral argument, thoroughly reviewed the Record, and
3

concluded the district court committed no error.

AFFIRMED.
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR 8-HOUR OZONE RACT SIP SU BMITTAL Planning Area: El Dorado County Air Quality Manage ment District Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V – Criteria for Determining the Completeness

of Plan Submissions Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS 2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's Designee X See ARB Executive Order G-125-346.

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption X See El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Board Resolution No. 016-2007 as certified by Board Clerk. 2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation X See ARB Executiv e Order G-125-346. 2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan b: Contingency Measures Not applicable

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's Procedural Requirements X See El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Board Resolution No. 016-2007 as certified by Board Clerk and ARB Executive Order G-125- 346. 2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 40 CFR part 51.102 X See attachment three of the District submittal. 2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in Accordance with Notice X See attachment three of the District submittal. 2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and Responses There were no comments.

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant Not applicable.
2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status N ot applicable.
2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions Not applicable.
2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan Approval/Implementation Protects NAAQS Not applicable.
2.2(e) Modeling Support Not applicable. 2.2(f)- Compliance/Enforcement and 2.2(i) Justification Not applicable.
#### M&W, Inc. v. Pacific Guardian Life Ins. Co.

19276

09/29/1998

Denied

966 P.2d 1098
EXHIBIT 32.2

GENAERA CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Skolas, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Skolas                                  
|John A. Skolas                                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|April 30, 2007