alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.5

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                       to

                          GENTIVA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

                       STOCK & DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
                           FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


     This Amendment No. 1 dated as of May 6, 2005 to Gentiva Health Services,
Inc. Stock & Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as amended
and restated as of January 1, 2004 (the "Plan").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                              - - - - - - - - - -

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7(d) of the Plan the Board of Directors
has authorized amending the Plan as follows;

         NOW THEREFORE, the following sections of the Plan are amended,
effective May 6, 2005:

         1. The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is deleted, and the
following sentence is substituted therefor: "Beginning with the Annual
Shareholders Meeting held on May 6, 2005, the portion of each Director's annual
retainer fee to be deferred into Units for a Plan Year shall be $40,000."

         2. In the first sentence of Section 4(b) of the Plan, the dollar amount
"$7,500" is deleted, and the dollar amount "$10,000" is substituted therefor.

         3. Except as amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Plan
shall remain in full force and effect.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of AirNet Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,William R. Sumser, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and VicePresident, Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United StatesCode, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
|   | /s/ William  R. Sumser*                                                                 |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                    |
|   | William R.  Sumser                                                                      |
|   |                                                                                    |
|   | Title:  Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer,  Secretary and Vice President, Finance |
|   |                                                                                    |
|   | Date:  May 15, 2003                                                                |

 

----

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AirNet Systems,Inc. and will be retained by AirNet Systems, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
National Quality Care, Inc.




We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-03622, 333-06175, 333-14839, 333-21911, 333-25955, 333-32287, 333-34703,
333-45145, 333-46967, 333-49059, and 333-73413), on Form S-8 of National Quality
Care, Inc. of our report dated March 19, 2000 relating to the consolidated
balance sheet of National Quality Care, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31,
1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which report is included in the
December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-KSB of National Quality Care, Inc.


/s/ Moss Adams LLP

Moss Adams LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 13, 2000
#### VANCE v. STATE.

No. 15564.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1932.

L. D. Johnston and Lynn B. Griffith, both of Waxahachie, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, P. J.

The offense is murder; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of forty-five years.

A plea of guilty was entered. When, in the offense of murder such a plea is entered, the hearing of the evidence by the jury is for the purpose of determining the extent of the punishment to be assessed. See article 502, C. C. P. 1925; also Harwell v. State, 19 Tex. App. 423; Burton v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 138, 25 S. W. 782; Coats v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 234, 215 S. W. 856. The matter of guilt of the offense is established by the plea, except in cases in which the evidence introduced demonstrates the innocence of the accused of the offense for which he is charged. See Anderson v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 194, 42 S.W.(2d) 1012. In the present instance, the evidence adduced upon ’the trial shows conclusively that the appellant killed the deceased, and is such as to justify the conclusion that in committing the homicide the appellant acted with malice aforethought and without justification.

Appellant introduced testimony through his wife suggesting that he acted in self-defense. As stated above, however, the preponderance of the evidence is far to the contrary. The state’s evidence is quite sufficient to support the conclusion that the commission of the offense was neither justifiable nor excusable.

Some bills of exception appear in the record which, in the main, relate to the cross-examination of the appellant’s wife. She was called as a witness by him and testified, as abqve stated, to facts tending to exculpate him. On the face of the bills we think that the claim that error is disclosed is untenable, and it is clearly made so by the bills as qualified.

*119In sentencing the appellant, the court ignored the statutory provision relating to the Indeterminate Sentence Law as set forth in article 775, C. C. P. 1925. The sentence will be reformed so as to condemn the appellant to suffer ■ confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of not less than two nor more than forty-five years. As so reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

HAWKINS, J., not sitting.
Docket No: FAA-2015-5811 Dir ID: 2014-nm-158-AD
No. 99-10975

-1-

 

* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-10975

Conference Calendar

 

CHARLES LEIGH BERKLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ROTAN, Ballinger, Texas,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CV-45-C

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Leigh Berkley, Texas prisoner # 809353, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his civil lawsuit alleging wrongful

foreclosure and failure to properly service bank accounts. 

However, he briefs no argument that the district court erred in

its conclusion; he has thus waived the sole ground for appeal,

and his appeal is DISMISSED. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)(arguments must be briefed in order to be 

preserved for appeal); Fed. R. App. P. 28(A)(9)(A); Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
No. 99-10975

-2-

Berkley also moves for the appointment of counsel and “to

proceed.” His motions are DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 236 (Thursday, December 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31169]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Public Hearing

    The National Transportation Safety Board will convene a public 
hearing beginning at 11 a.m., local time on Wednesday, December 13-15, 
2000, in the Safety Board's Boardroom and Conference Center at 429 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594 concerning Alaska Airlines 
Flight 261 off the coast of California near Port Hueneme on January 31, 
2000. For more information, contact Dick Rodriquez, NTSB Office of 
Aviation Safety at (202) 314-6317 or Terry N. Williams NTSB Office of 
Public Affairs at (202) 314-6100.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodation should contact Mrs. 
Carolyn Dargan on 202-314-6305 by Friday December 8, 2000.

    Dated: December 4, 2000.
Rhonda Underwood,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-31169 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Digene Corporation (the
Company) on Form-10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Charles M. Fleischman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:



| | 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 result of
operations of the Company.

| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| |                             
| | /s/    Charles M. Fleischman
| |                             
| | Charles M. Fleischman       
| | Chief Financial Officer     
| | November 10, 2003
# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

# SUMMARY:

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to modify all scientific research permits issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) for the Quino checkerspot butterfly to authorize the following activities: survey by pursuit; capture; handle; release; and with prior approval from the Service, purposefully kill for the collection of voucher specimens.

# DATES:

Written comments on this proposed action must be received on or before March 13, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

Written data or comments should be submitted to the Chief'Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Fax: (503) 231-6243. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer O'Brion, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Fax: (503) 231-6243.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

Currently all permits issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to conduct presence or absence surveys for the Quino checkerspot butterfly only authorize permittees to pursue the butterfly when conducting surveys, and no capture or handling of individuals is allowed. The Service would like to amend permits to authorize permittees to capture and handle individuals in order to confirm identification and either release individuals at the capture site or potentially kill them for voucher specimens with prior approval from the Service. This amendment will ensure that any changes made to the management of the Quino checkerspot butterfly are based on confirmed new locations.

Dated: February 4, 2000.

Cynthia U. Barry,

Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

[FR Doc. 00-3065 Filed 2-10-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60357 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CHRISTOPHER WAYNE GABLE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:10

- CR

- 43

- 1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and W ILLET T , Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Appealing the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release, Christopher Wayne Gable contends that the district court should have ordered additional inpatient treatment for his substance abuse and mental
health issues in lieu of imprisonment . He concedes t hat he violated several conditions of his supervised release but asserts that the violations resulted from the mishandling of his mental health treatment

. He a sserts that

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 7, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60357 Document: 00514862680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2019No. 18

- 60357

2 additional inpatient treatment was appropriate because of his long history of
substa nce abuse and mental illness and because he was successful during supervised release when his mental health issues were properly treated. He cites the requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) that the district court consider the need for medical care or o ther treatment

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The district court considered the applicable § 3553 factors in imposing Gable’s revocation sentence. The court considered the need to provide Gable
with medical care and noted that it would recommend that he rece ive mental health treatment in prison and be admitted into an inpatient treatment program immediately upon his release. The court determined that a 12

- month prison term was necessary because of Gable’s “very frightening” history, his anger, the need to protect the public, the f ailed efforts to treat Gable’s mental health and substance abuse problems, the nature and circumstances of the violations, and his continued noncompliance both with the conditions of his release and with the requirements of an inpatient drug treatment program. Gable has not shown that his prison sentence d oes not account for a factor that should hav e received significant weight, that it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or that it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013) . He has not shown error, much less obvious error. Accordingly, he fails to show that the revocation sentence was plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 18-60357 Document: 00514862680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2019
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1855 

To permit the Miami Nation of Indiana to apply for acknowledgment as 

a federally recognized Indian tribe, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 

Mr. DONNELLY (for himself and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To permit the Miami Nation of Indiana to apply for acknowledgment as a federally recognized Indian tribe, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. 

4 In this Act: 

5 (1) ACKNOWLEDGMENT.—The term ‘‘acknowl6 edgment’’ means acknowledgment as a federally rec7 ognized Indian tribe. 

8 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of the Interior. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1855 IS

1 SEC. 2. MIAMI NATION OF INDIANA PERMITTED TO PETI2 TION FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law (including regulations) that denies acknowledg5 ment to an entity that previously petitioned for and was 

6 denied acknowledgment, the Miami Nation of Indiana may 

7 submit a petition to the Secretary, under part 83 of title 

8 25, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date 

9 of enactment of this Act), for acknowledgment. 

10 (b) EFFECT ON DETERMINATION.—In reviewing and 

11 making a determination on a petition for acknowledgment 

12 that the Miami Nation of Indiana submitted, the Sec13 retary shall not use, as a reason to deny the petition for 

14 acknowledgment that the Miami Nation of Indiana sub15 mitted, any previous denial of a petition for acknowledg16 ment that the Miami Nation of Indiana submitted, includ17 ing— 

18 (1) a denial by the Secretary of a petition; 

19 (2) a court decision affirming a denial of a peti20 tion; and 

21 (3) any other denial of a petition. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 186 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide that any inaction by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that 

allows a rate change to go into effect shall be treated 

as an order by the Commission for purposes of rehearing 

and court review. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 186 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Ratepayer Ac3 countability, Transparency, and Efficiency Standards 

4 Act’’ or the ‘‘Fair RATES Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

6 Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 

7 824d) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(g) INACTION OF COMMISSIONERS.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Commission permits 

10 the expiration of the 60-day period established under 

11 the first sentence of subsection (d) because the 

12 members of the Commission are divided two against 

13 two as to the lawfulness of the change, as a result 

14 of vacancy, incapacity, or recusal on the Commis15 sion— 

16 ‘‘(A) the failure to act by the Commission 

17 shall be considered to be an order issued by the 

18 Commission accepting the change for purposes 

19 of section 313(a); and 

20 ‘‘(B) there shall be added to the record of 

21 the proceeding of the Commission— 

22 ‘‘(i) the proposed order; 

23 ‘‘(ii) notice of the division of the Com24 missioners with respect to the proposed 

25 order; and 
3 

†S 186 ES

1 ‘‘(iii) the written statement of each 

2 member of the Commission explaining the 

3 views of the Commissioner with respect to 

4 the proposed order. 

5 ‘‘(2) APPEAL.—If any party to a proceeding of 

6 the Commission described in paragraph (1) seeks a 

7 rehearing under section 313(a) and the Commission 

8 fails to act on the merits of the rehearing request by 

9 the date that is 30 days after the date of the rehear10 ing request because the members of the Commission 

11 are divided two against two, as a result of vacancy, 

12 incapacity, or recusal on the Commission, any party 

13 that sought the rehearing may appeal under section 

14 313(b).’’. 

Passed the Senate September 4, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 186 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide that 

view. mission for purposes of rehearing and court reeffect shall be treated as an order by the ComCommission that allows a rate change to go into any inaction by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Part I, Section B, Item C - ID Method

T-C5075P
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Intere st of J.N.R., a Child

No. 06

- 15

- 00084

- CV Appeal from the 146th District Court of
Bell County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 264,127

- B ). Opinion delivered by Justice Mosele y,

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess
participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

.
We further order that the appellant pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 13, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
S. 190 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

An Act 

To provide for consideration of the extension under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of nonapplication of No-Load Mode energy efficiency standards to certain 

security or life safety alarms or surveillance systems, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Power And Security Systems 

(PASS) Act’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NONAPPLICATION OF NO-LOAD MODE ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY STANDARD TO CERTAIN SECURITY OR LIFE 

SAFETY ALARM OR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS. 

(a) Section 325(u)(3)(D)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘2015’’ each place it appears and inserting 

‘‘2021’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘2017’’ and inserting ‘‘2023’’. 

(b) Section 325(u)(3)(E) of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)) is amended— 

(1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘July 1, 2017,’’ and inserting 

‘‘the effective date of the amendment under subparagraph 

(D)(ii)’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(iv) TREATMENT IN RULE.—In the rule under 

subparagraph (D)(ii) and subsequent amendments the 

Secretary may treat some or all external power supplies designed to be connected to a security or life 

safety alarm or surveillance system as a separate 
S. 190—2 

product class or may extend the nonapplication under 

clause (ii).’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Director Compensation effective January 1, 2005



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 North State Bancorp 
  
 Director Compensation Effective as of January 1, 2005 
  
 Effective in January, 2005, our directors will receive a $1,000 annual retainer, except for the Chairman of the Board, the Chairman of the Audit Committee, the Chairman
of the Loan Committee and the Chairman of the Executive Committee who will receive annual retainers of $3,500, $3,500, $2,500 and $1,000, respectively. Directors will also receive $250 for each Board meeting held and committee members will receive
for their services on a committee $350 for each Executive Committee meeting held and $250 for each committee meeting other than the Executive Committee that is held.