alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit (10)(k)(i)

Amendment No. 4

to

Schedule A to Exhibit (10)(k)

January 31, 2003



The following table sets forth the name of each current officer of
Potlatch Corporation who has executed the Indemnification Agreement filed as Exhibit (10)(k):



|Name of Officer     |  | Position                                                      |  | Date Agreement Executed
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|L. Pendleton Siegel |  | Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer                          |  | December 11, 1986      
|                   
|Richard L. Paulson  |  | President and Chief Operating
Officer                         |  | January 1, 1993        
|                   
|Terry L. Carter     |  | Controller                                                    |  | January 1, 2003        
|                   
|Ralph M. Davisson   |  | Vice President                                                |  | April 1, 1990          
|                   
|Barbara M. Failing  |  | Vice President                                                |  | December 15, 2000      
|                   
|Richard K. Kelly    |  | Vice President                                                |  | July 15, 1999          
|                   
|Craig H. Nelson     |  | Vice President                                                |  | May 29, 1996           
|                   
|John R. Olson       |  | Vice President                                                |  | July 30, 1999          
|                   
|Harry D. Seamans    |  | Vice President                                                |  | January 1, 2003        
|                   
|Gerald L. Zuehlke   |  | Vice President, Finance Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer |  | April 10, 1995         
|                   
|Malcolm A. Ryerse   |  | Corporate Secretary                                           |  | August 7, 2000
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Brown &
Brown, Inc. (Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Form 10-K), I, Cory T. Walker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Form 10-K
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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 26, 2010



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Cory T. Walker     
|Cory T. Walker         
|Chief Financial Officer
# Exhibit 32.2

# 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 Quarterly Report of Disaboom, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Walpuck, 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 WalpuckChief Financial
Officer

Dated:  May 14, 2007

---
# L_2009035EN.01S00301.xml

| 4.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 35/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 35/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided to no longer quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3641

_____________________________

NICHOLAS D. WARREN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

January 3, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jason T. Forman, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    /s/ Russell McCannRussell McCannChief Financial Officer
Presidential Documents

77011 

Federal Register 

Vol. 89, No. 183 

Friday, September 20, 2024 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of September 18, 2024 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism 

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared 

a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 

United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on 

September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, 

and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United 

States nationals or the United States. 

On September 9, 2019, the President signed Executive Order 13886 to 

strengthen and consolidate sanctions to combat the continuing threat posed 

by international terrorism and to take additional steps to deal with the 

national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224, as amended. 

The actions of persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism 

continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, 

foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the 

national emergency declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 

2001, as amended, and the measures adopted to deal with that emergency, 

must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2024. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons 

who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism declared in Executive 

Order 13224, as amended. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O0
77012 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 183 / Friday, September 20, 2024 / Presidential Documents 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 18, 2024. [FR Doc. 2024–21722 

Filed 9–19–24; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3395–F4–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O0BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
#### Claud WOODS v. STATE.

No. 24197.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for robbery. The penalty assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of twenty years.

Since perfecting his appeal, appellant has ■filed a written motion duly verified, requesting the privilege of withdrawing said appeal. The request is granted and the appeal is now ordered dismissed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2013

- 0397 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2013

- NE

- 15

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### TAY bleed valve inspection assumed 2% failu re rate of spherical bearings 10.0 $ 850.00 $153 $ 1,003.00 

### 52 $ 52,156.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 52,156 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### ASE Estimate based on feedback from OEM

**Executive Order 12866:**
Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory acti on”?
YES * NO

* Explana tion: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportatio n?
YES * NO



### * Explana tion 

### :
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.4


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    
This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into this 10th day of August, 2017, between 40|86 Advisors, Inc. (the “Company”) and Eric R. Johnson (“Executive”).


Recitals


A.The Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of September 30, 2016 (the “Agreement”).


B.The Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 
    
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged:




		
	1.
	The first two sentences of Section 10(c) of the Agreement are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows:




Executive’s employment may be terminated in a Control Termination.  A “Control Termination” shall mean any termination by the Company (or its successor), of Executive’s employment for any reason, or by Executive With Reason as so defined, within six months in anticipation of or within two years following a Change in Control.  


All other provisions of Section 10(c) of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.


		
	2.
	The first sentence of Section 11(d) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:  




In the event that Executive is terminated by the Company (or its successor) in a Control Termination as so defined, or if Executive terminates his employment With Reason in a Control Termination, then the Company shall pay Executive within 30 days of the Termination Date the Accrued Amounts.  


All other provisions of Section 11(d) of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.













All provisions of the Agreement not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.


40|86 ADVISORS, INC. 
	
		
	By:
	/s/ Karl W. Kindig

	 
	Karl W. Kindig

	 
	Assistant Secretary






	
		
	 
	/s/ Eric R. Johnson

	 
	Eric R. Johnson

	 
	 








2
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-104-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# Official Journal L 200/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.200.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 200 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5331 July 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.200.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 200

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5331 July 2010

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Regulation No 69 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of rear marking plates for slow-moving vehicles (by construction) and their trailers | 1 |
| | * | Regulation No 71 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of agricultural tractors with regard to the driver’s field of vision | 28 |
| | * | Regulation No 125 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the forward field of vision of the motor vehicle driver | 38 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Regulation No 69 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of rear marking plates for slow-moving vehicles (by construction) and their trailers

1

*

Regulation No 71 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of agricultural tractors with regard to the driver’s field of vision

28

*

Regulation No 125 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the forward field of vision of the motor vehicle driver

38

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Cite as 2013 Ark. 378

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-11-488

LAMAR BORIS DAVIS 

 APPELLANT

V.

RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

 APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered October 3, 2013 

PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE

JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT, 35CV-11-63, HON. JODI

RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

On July 31, 2011, appellant Lamar Boris Davis, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas

Department of Correction (ADC) at a facility in Jefferson County, filed a pro se petition for writ

of habeas corpus in the Jefferson County Circuit Court. The circuit court denied the petition,

and appellant lodged this appeal. 

We dismiss the appeal because the Jefferson County Circuit Court can no longer grant

the relief requested by appellant. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for

postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go

forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Wilencewicz v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 230

(per curiam); Fudge v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 80 (per curiam).

Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly

addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the

petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. Wilencewicz, 2012 Ark. 230; Davis v. Hobbs, 2012

Ark. 167 (per curiam). Appellant’s petition was not filed under Act 1780, and the public records
Cite as 2013 Ark. 378

of the ADC confirm that appellant is now incarcerated in a facility in Lincoln County.

A circuit court does not have jurisdiction to release on a writ of habeas corpus a prisoner

not in custody in that court’s jurisdiction. Chestang v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 404 (per curiam);

Buckhanna v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 119 (per curiam). When a prisoner who seeks habeas relief is

transferred to a facility in a different county, the circuit court in the county where the prisoner

was previously incarcerated no longer has jurisdiction to issue and make a returnable writ. 

Wilencewicz, 2012 Ark. 230. Although the Jefferson County Circuit Court may have retained

subject-matter jurisdiction, it does not retain personal jurisdiction over the person in whose

custody the prisoner is detained, and an order by that court will not act to effect his release. Id. 

This court will dismiss an appeal of the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus where the

appellant is no longer incarcerated in the county where his petition was filed because the court

can no longer grant the relief sought. Id.

Appeal dismissed. 

Lamar Boris Davis, pro se appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Adrienne Woods,

Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules Governing Admission to

the Bar of the Supreme Court under the supervision of Darnisa Evans Johnson, Deputy Att’y Gen.,

for appellee.

2
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Thomas L. Mitchell, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noble Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:August 9, 2007   /s/ THOMAS L. MITCHELL     Thomas L. Mitchell  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof Noble Corporation
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Alan Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2009 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I,
Ltd.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: July 24, 2009



/s/ ALAN CAMPBELLAlan CampbellChief Financial Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.