alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.27

                AMENDED SHARE VOTING STIPULATION AND UNDERTAKING

         This AMENDED SHARE VOTING STIPULATION AND UNDERTAKING ("Amended
Undertaking") amends the SHARE VOTING STIPULATION AND UNDERTAKING made as of
April 22, 2004 by Carver Bancorp, Inc. ("Carver"), the savings and loan holding
company parent of Carver Federal Savings Bank, to the U.S. Office of Thrift
Supervision ("OTS").

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, Carver is the owner of 150,000 shares of common stock of
Independence Federal Savings Bank, a federal savings association
("Independence"), representing approximately 9.7% of Independence's outstanding
voting stock.

         WHEREAS, the rules and regulations of the OTS prohibit savings and loan
holding companies, such as Carver, from acquiring or retaining more than 5% of
the voting stock of a savings association not a subsidiary, such as
Independence, except with the prior written approval of the OTS, and Carver is
in the process of seeking such approval.

         WHEREAS, until such OTS approval is received, Carver agrees that it
will transfer the shares of Independence held by it in excess of the 5% limit
set forth above to a separate trust administered by an independent trustee, and
that it will instruct the independent trustee to not vote any of such excess
shares on any matter submitted to a vote of Independence's shareholders.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, Carver agrees as
follows:

         1. AGREEMENT TO PUT SHARES IN TRUST. Carver agrees that it will hereby
place 72,375 of the 150,000 shares of Independence common stock held by it,
representing approximately 4.7% of Independence's outstanding shares of common
stock, in a separate trust (the "Trust"), which will be administered by an
independent trustee.

         2. VOTING OF SHARES HELD IN TRUST. Carver agrees that it will instruct
the independent trustee to not vote any of the shares held in the Trust on any
matter to be considered by the shareholders of Independence.

         3. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CORPORATE SECRETARY OF INDEPENDENCE. Carver agrees
that it will provide a copy of this Amended Undertaking to the Corporate
Secretary of Independence upon the execution hereof.

         4. TERMINATION. This Agreement shall terminate and shall have no
further force or effect upon the earlier of (i) the date on which Carver is no
longer the beneficial or record owner of more than 5% of Independence's
outstanding voting stock and (ii) the date on which Carver receives the approval
of the OTS to acquire or retain more than 5% of Independence's outstanding
voting stock.



<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Carver has caused this Amended Undertaking to be
duly executed on April 27, 2004.


                                    CARVER BANCORP, INC.


                                    By:   /s/ Deborah C. Wright
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Deborah C. Wright
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Marvin A. PENNY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28772.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 20, 1957.

Bill M. Dickson, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for theft of personal property over the value of $50, with punishment assessed at ten years in the penitentiary.

The statement of facts, as signed, approved, and filed in this case, shows that the value of the property alleged to have been stolen was less than $50. Such being true, the offense shown was not a felony.

State’s counsel very frankly admit that such is the case. It is suggested by them that the value as stated in the statement of facts wás the result of a typographical error. They admit, however, that they, as well as this court, are bound by the approved and certified record, and confess that under the record as here presented the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the cause remanded.

It is accordingly so ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                     0
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                125,900
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                 734
<OTHER-SE>                             2,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               0
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     125,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    (128,689)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (128,869)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.00)



</TABLE>
#### COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF LOUISVILLE, Appellant, v. Elizabeth LOWE et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 28, 1955.

A. J. Deindoerfer, Boehl, Stopher, Kil-garriff, Graves *&*Deindoerfer, Louisville, for appellant.

Charles W. Anderson, Jr., Albert F. Reutlinger, Louisville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court. Elizabeth *48Lowe sued the Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Louisville, and Irving and Sarah Schneider, for damages for personal injuries sustained when a Coca Cola advertising sign, hanging on an outside wall of the Schneiders’ grocery store, fell and struck her on the head and shoulders. The Schneiders filed a cross-claim against the Coca Cola Company, for indemnity. The court directed a verdict against the Coca Cola Company, but in favor of the Schneiders, on Miss Lowe’s claim. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $1,850. The court also directed a verdict against the Coca Cola Company, on the Schneiders’ cross-claim for attorney’s fees and expenses, in the amount of $419.80. The Coca Cola Company has moved for an appeal.

Under the evidence as to ownership, management, control and maintenance of the sign, we think it would have been proper for the court to have directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against both the Coca Cola Company and the Schneiders, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. See Note, Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Case of Multiple Defendants, 38 A.L.R.2d 905.

If the court had directed a verdict against both defendants, in favor of the plaintiff, it would have been proper to direct a verdict for the Schneiders on their cross-claim for indemnity, because we think the evidence shows that as between the two defendants the Coca Cola Company had and exercised primary responsibility for the maintenance of the sign, and its negligence was primary and active while that of the Schneiders was secondary and passive. See Brown Hotel Co. v. Pittsburgh Fuel Co., 311 Ky. 396, 224 S.W.2d 165.

Since the court could properly have directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff as against both the defendants, and then directed a verdict in favor of the Schneiders on their cross-claim for indemnity, the failure of the court to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the Schneiders was not prejudicial to the Coca Cola Company. The fact that the Coca Cola Company has been directed to indemnify the Schneiders for their attorneys’ fees and costs, without the Schneiders having been found liable to the plaintiff, cannot be complained of because the practical result would have been the same if the Schneiders had been found liable to the plaintiff.

While the damages awarded the plaintiff were liberal, we cannot say they were excessive.

The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
#### Marvin WADDLETON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28100.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1956.

No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER. CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine 07⁄8 $50.

The record on appeal contains no state, ment' of facts or bills 'of exception. A *A*proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.6(a)

                         BANCORP RHODE ISLAND, INC.
                      AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
                      NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN

      WHEREAS, Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. (the "Company") desires to amend
the provisions of the Company's Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan (the
"Plan") to reflect an increase in the maximum number of Common Shares for
which options may be granted under the Plan; and

      WHEREAS, under Section 7 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the
Company, may amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of Common Shares
for which options may be granted under the Plan, provided that such
amendment shall not become effective until the approval of the
shareholders; and

      WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and shareholders of the Company have
each approved the amendment to increase the maximum number of Common Shares
for which options may be granted under the Plan;

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

      1.  That Section 5(b) of the Plan be amended by substituting the
number "65,000" for "40,000" in the first sentence thereof to increase the
maximum number of Common Shares for which options may be granted under the
Plan.

      2.  All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect and are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to the Non-
Employee Directors Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of
the 15th day of May, 2002.

                                       BANCORP RHODE ISLAND, INC.

                                       By: /s/ Merrill W. Sherman
                                           ----------------------------
                                               Merrill W. Sherman
                                               President and CEO

Attest:

/s/ Margaret D. Farrell
-----------------------
Secretary
Exhibit 32.1
------------



                            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 Periodic Report on Form 10-QSB for the three month
period ended September 30, 2004 of Andresmin Gold Corporation, a Montana
corporation (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Ian Brodie, President,
Chief Executive Officer and principal 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.


Dated: November 18, 2004                              /s/ Ian Brodie
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Ian Brodie, President, CEO and
                                                principal financial officer
#### Ex parte Lenford Herbert HARRISON.

No. 28764.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1957.

No attorney for relator of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

This is an extradition case.

Appellant sought his discharge by writ of habeas corpus filed in the Criminal District Court of 'Dallas County, Texas. After a hearing, appellant was remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Dallas County to be delivered to the agent of the State of Ohio, the demanding state, and from said order he appeals.

The statement of -facts ajppearing in the record cannot be considered because it was not filed in the trial court within the time required by Art. 759a, Sec. 4, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 276 S.W.2d 813.

No formal bills of exception appear in the record.

All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 561 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 90
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 561

                          [Report No. 104-68]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 1995

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                             April 18, 1995

    Reported, under authority of the order of the Senate of April 6 
  (legislative day, April 5), 1995, by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United 
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE, United States official number 
600655.
                                     

                                                        Calendar No. 90

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 561

                          [Report No. 104-68]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 18, 1995

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Charles Hayden PRITCHARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28098.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the .punishment, 3-days in jail and a fine of =$50. ' - - .

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception.' All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing, is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03510]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 24-08]


Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment; Impact Products, 
LLC and Safety Zone, LLC, Complainants, v. Orient Overseas Container 
Line Ltd. and OOCL (Europe) Ltd., Respondents

Served: February 14, 2024.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (the ``Commission'') by Impact Products, LLC and 
Safety Zone, LLC (the ``Complainants'') against Orient Overseas 
Container Line Limited and OOCL (Europe) Limited (the ``Respondents''). 
Complainants state that the Commission has jurisdiction over the 
complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41301 through 41309 and personal 
jurisdiction over the Respondents as ocean common carriers, as defined 
in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that entered into service contracts, as defined 
in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), with the Complainants.
    Complainant Impact Products, LLC is a corporation located in 
Toledo, Ohio. Complainant Safety Zone, LLC is a corporation located in 
Guilford, Connecticut. Complainants are shippers as this term is 
defined under 46 U.S.C. 40102(23).
    Complainants identify Respondent Orient Overseas Container Line 
Limited as a company existing under the laws of Hong Kong with its 
principal place of business in Wan Chai, Hong Kong, and as a global 
ocean carrier.
    Complainants identify Respondent OOCL (Europe) Limited as a company 
existing under the laws of the United Kingdom with a principal place of 
business in Suffolk, United Kingdom, and as a global ocean carrier.
    Complainants allege that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) 
and 41104(a)(10) and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainants allege these violations 
arose from assessment of demurrage, detention, per diem, and yard 
storage charges during periods of time in which the charges were not 
just or reasonable because of circumstances outside the control of the 
Complainants and its agents and service providers, and from the acts or 
omissions of the Respondents that led to the assessment of these 
charges.
    An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 
25 days after the date of service.
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/24-08/. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge 
shall be issued by February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by August 29, 2025.

David Eng,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03510 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

The Coast Distribution System, Inc. 

Annual Report on Form 10-K 

for the Year ended December 31, 2005, 

as Amended on Form 10-K/A 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of The CoastDistribution System, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and as amended bythis Amendment on Form 10-K/A (the “Annual Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained inthis Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: April 28, 2006
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 2, 2022 No. 04-22-00010-CV Brian A. JONES , Appellant
v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CV04875 Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R After this court granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file the brief, we set Appellant’s brief due on May 31, 2022. Before the once-extended due date, Appellant filed a second motion for an extension of time to file the brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on July 1, 2022. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6(d).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of June, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT32-1

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Hesperia Holding, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Donald Shimp, President of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

/s/Donald Shimp                    

DonaldShimp

President

May14, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1671 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1671

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
  Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing 
 assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a 
                             family member.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2011

Mr. Braley of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
  Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing 
 assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a 
                             family member.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Andrew Connolly Veterans' Housing 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 
              PROVIDE SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO 
              INDIVIDUALS RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING OWNED BY A 
              FAMILY MEMBER.

    Section 2102A of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting ``December 31, 2016''.
                                 <all>
```