alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third Amendment of the Sky Financial Group, Inc. 2004 Restricted Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.28 
  
 THIRD
AMENDMENT 
 OF THE 
 SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 2004 RESTRICTED STOCK
PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, this corporation maintains the Sky Financial Group, Inc. 2004 Restricted Stock Plan (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company previously has amended the Plan and the Company’s Board of Directors has determined that
further amendment of the Plan is necessary and desirable. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that, pursuant to the power reserved to the Company by Article VI of the Plan, the Plan,
as previously amended, be and is hereby further amended, effective as of the date of adoption, in the following particulars: 
  
 1.        By adding the following new sentence to Section 3.1 of the Plan immediately after
the last sentence of such section: 
  
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board may delegate authority to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer to grant a specified number of Awards of Restricted Stock and/or RSUs (as determined by the Board from time to time and
during such time periods determined by the Board) to existing or prospective Employees (other than those individuals who are subject to Section 16(a) of the 1934 Act at the time of the grant) as the Chief Executive Officer determines
appropriate without further action from the Board.” 
  
 2.        By adding the following new Section 7.8 to the Plan immediately after Section 7.7 thereof: 
  
 “SECTION 7.8. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE
16b-3. 
  
 With respect to
persons subject to Section 16 of the 1934 Act, transactions under this Plan are intended to comply with all applicable conditions of Rule 16b-3 or its successors under the 1934 Act. To the extent that any provision of this Plan or action by the
Board or the Committee fails to do so, it shall be deemed 








 
null and void to the extent permitted by law and deemed advisable by the Committee and the Board.” 
  
 *        *        * 
  
 I, W. Granger Souder, Jr., Secretary of Sky Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of resolutions duly
adopted by the Board of Directors of said corporation on December 14, 2005, and that the resolutions have not been changed or repealed. 
  

			
		
	 	 	 /s/ W. Granger Souder, Jr.


	 	 	 Secretary as Aforesaid
 (Corporate Seal)



  

 - 2 -
Exhibit  32.1

CERTIFICATION  OF  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO  18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,  AS  ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  906  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002

     I,  MacDonald  Tudeme,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of MT Ultimate Healthcare Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form  10-KSB  fairly  presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  MT  Ultimate  Healthcare  Corp.

May  19,  2005

                                   By:   /s/  MacDonald  Tudeme
                                        --------------------------
                                        MacDonald  Tudeme
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer

<PAGE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

Appellate case name: Elizabeth Copeland v. Barry Copeland

Appellate case number: 01-14-00680-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-39055

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed February 4, 2015 is 

GRANTED, with no further extensions. Appellant’s brief is due March 6, 2015. 

Appellant has previously been informed that no further extensions will be granted. If 

appellant’s brief is not filed by March 6, 2015, this case may be dismissed for want of 

prosecution without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); 42.3(b), (c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/_Rebeca Huddle

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 12, 2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6518

RANDOLPH ASHFORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL STEPHAN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:18-cv-01262-JFA)

Submitted: October 23, 2019 Decided: October 25, 2019

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph Ashford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Randolph Ashford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ashford has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ashford’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Ashford’s motions for single-judge 

consideration, to appoint counsel, and to hold his case in abeyance. Finally, we deny as 

moot Ashford’s motion for release pending appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order entered July 21, 2022 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00688-CV 

IN RE AL WILLIAMS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-17458 

ORDER 

Before Justices Osborne, Partida-Kipness, and Smith 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus. 

 

/s/ CRAIG SMITH 

 JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5426 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5426

          To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

Mr. Huelskamp introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Tennis shoes,       Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          basketball shoes,                                                 12/31/2015
                          gym shoes,
                          training shoes,
                          and the like, the
                          foregoing with
                          outer soles of
                          rubber or
                          plastics
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          6402.99.31)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 23, 2009 

l0916 

Order 

 

September 23, 2009 

138874 

& (18)

(23) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138874 

 COA: 290310 

Clinton CC: 08-008247-FH 

DONALD JOSEPH MARCHESE, JR., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions to remand 

and to add or expand issues are DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5567 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5567

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4605 Tutu Park Mall in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, as 
               the ``Kenneth Leslie Harmon Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

 Mrs. Christensen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 4605 Tutu Park Mall in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands, as 
               the ``Kenneth Leslie Harmon Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. KENNETH LESLIE HARMON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4605 Tutu Park Mall in St. Thomas, United States Virgin 
Islands, shall be known and designated as the ``Kenneth Leslie Harmon 
Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kenneth 
Leslie Harmon Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 8

Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 11
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-13 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 11
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 26996.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 12, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant -vvas convicted for the unlawful transportation of beer in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed at IS days in jail and a fine of $100.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

■ .Opinion approved by the Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26933]


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

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 application also will 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. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    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 November 13, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc., New Berlin, 
Wisconsin, and Merchants Merger Corp., New Berlin, Wisconsin; to merge 
with CBOC, Inc., Oconto Falls, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Community Bank of Oconto County, Oconto Falls, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 16, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-26933 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA NELY ZERMENO-RODRIGUEZ, 

AKA Rosa Nely Zermeno, AKA Rosa Nely 

Zermeno Rodriguez, AKA Rosa Nely 

Zermo, AKA Rosa Zrmeno, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73683 

Agency No. A037-446-558 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Rosa Nely Zermeno-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73683 

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. 

We lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) to review the agency’s 

discretionary determination that Zermeno-Rodriguez has been convicted of a 

particularly serious crime that bars withholding of removal. See Pechenkov v. 

Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 447-48 (9th Cir. 2012) (no jurisdiction to review 

particularly serious crime determination where there is no assertion of legal or 

constitutional error and the only challenge is that the IJ incorrectly weighed the 

facts). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Zermeno-Rodriguez did not establish that it is more likely than not that she would 

be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.12

                                WAIVER EXTENSION

         WAIVER, dated as of November 5, 1998 (this "Waiver Extension"), to the
Master Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of May 15, 1998 (as amended,
supplemented or otherwise modified prior to the date hereof, the "Loan
Agreement"), between CHASTAIN CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation (the
"Borrower"), and MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a New York Banking
corporation (the "Lender").

                                    RECITALS

         The Borrower has requested the Lender to agree to extend the expiration
of the Waiver, dated as of October 22, 1998 between the Borrower and the Lender
(the "Waiver"). The Lender is willing to agree to extension, but only on the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Waiver.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Borrower and the Lender hereby agree as follows:

         1.       Defined Terms. Unless otherwise defined herein, terms defined
in the Loan Agreement are used herein as therein defined.

         2.       Waiver Extension. The Lender hereby agrees to extend the
termination date of the Waiver to 6:00 p.m. of November 6, 1998, at which time
the Waiver shall automatically terminate, without notice.

         3.       Effectiveness. This Waiver shall become effective upon
execution by the Lender and receipt by the Lender of evidence satisfactory to
the Lender that this Waiver has been executed and delivered by the Borrower.

         4.       No Other Amendments or Modifications. Unless expressly
amended herein, all terms, conditions and other provisions of the Waiver shall
remain in full force and effect and shall not be deemed amended or modified
hereby.

         5.       Counterparts. This Waiver may be executed by one or more of
the parties hereto on any number of separate counterparts and all of said
counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same
instrument.

         6.       Applicable Law. THIS WAIVER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND
CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICTS OF LAW RULES.



                                     -1-
<PAGE>   2

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Waiver
Extension to be duly executed and delivered as of the day and year first above
written.

                                      MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF 
                                      NEW YORK, as Lender



                                      By:
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Name:
                                         Title:


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:

CHASTAIN CAPITAL CORPORATION



By:
   ---------------------------
Name:
Title:



                                     - 2 -
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2752 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude seasonal workers 

from the applicable large employer determination for purposes of employer shared responsibility regarding health coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2013 

Mr. ALEXANDER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

seasonal workers from the applicable large employer determination for purposes of employer shared responsibility regarding health coverage. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SEASONAL WORKERS DISREGARDED IN DETER4 MINING EMPLOYER SIZE FOR PURPOSES OF 

5 EMPLOYER SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (i) of section 

7 4980H(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

8 amended to read as follows: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2752 IH

1 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Seasonal workers 

2 shall not be taken into account for pur3 poses of determining whether an employer 

4 is an applicable large employer under this 

5 paragraph.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to months beginning after Decem8 ber 31, 2013. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned President & Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certifies, that to their knowledge:

     1)   the Company's Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 28,
          2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     2)   the information contained in the Company's Form 10-QSB for the
          quarterly period ended December 28, 2002 fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

/s/ Carl H. Guild, Jr.                              /s/ Michael P. Malone
-----------------------------------                 ----------------------------
Carl H. Guild, Jr.                                  Michael P. Malone
President & Chief Executive Officer                 Chief Financial Officer

Date: February 14, 2003                             Date: February 14, 2003

                                    Page 17