alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10


Exhibit 10.5.3




FORM OF 

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

LOWCOUNTRY NATIONAL BANK

EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

EFFECTIVE __________, 20__






THIS AMENDMENT is adopted this __ _ day of ____________________, 20__, by and between LOWCOUNTRY NATIONAL BANK, a national-chartered commercial bank, located in Beaufort, South Carolina (the "Company"), and ______________ (the "Executive").




The Company and the Executive executed the EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT effective __________, 20__ (the "Agreement").




The undersigned hereby amend, in part, said Agreement for the purpose of defining Prime Rate and updating the definition of Return on Equity and the Change of Control Benefit.  Therefore, the following changes shall be made:




Article 1.13 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by Article 1.13 below.




1.13 "Return on Equity" means the Company's after tax net income for the quarter divided by the Company's equity at the beginning of the quarter, based on the Company's financial statement prepared in accordance with General Accepted Accounting Principles.




Article 1.14 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by Article 1.14 below.




1.14 "Prime Rate" means the Wall Street Journal prime rate on the first business day following Termination of Employment.




Article 4.1.2 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by Article 4.1.2 below.




4.1.2 Payment of Benefit. The Company shall pay the benefit to the Executive in 120 equal monthly installments commencing on the first day of the month following the Executive's Normal Retirement Date. The Company shall credit interest at an annual rate equal to the Prime Rate plus two percent (2%), compounded monthly, on the remaining account balance during any applicable installment period.




Article 4.4.1 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by Article 4.4.1 below.




4.4.1 Amount of Benefit. The benefit under this Section 4.4 shall be the Deferral Account balance at the date of the Executive's Termination of Employment plus interest at an annual rate equal to the Prime Rate plus two percent (2%), compounded monthly, from Termination of Employment to the Executive's Normal Retirement Age.














Article 4.4.2 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by Article 4.4.2 below.




4.4.2 Payment of Benefit. The Company shall pay the benefit to the Executive in 120 equal monthly installments commencing with the month following the Executive's Normal Retirement Date. The Company shall credit interest at an annual rate equal to the Prime Rate plus two percent (2%), compounded monthly, on the remaining account balance during any applicable installment period.




IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Executive and the Company hereby consent to this First Amendment.




					
	         

	LOWCOUNTRY NATIONAL BANK


	Executive:

	 
	 
	  


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:  

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 


	 
	 
	Title:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

 

 Gerald Bullocks , 

 Plaintiff, 

-vs- Case No. 1:18-CV-434 

 Ron Erdos et al, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. 

The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered 

its verdict. 

X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. 

The issues have been tried or heard and a decision 

has been rendered. 

 

 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

That the Report and recommendation is hereby adopted and the plaintiff’s 

complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. This case is hereby terminated 

from the docket from this court. 

Date: August 17, 2018 Richard W. Nagel, CLERK 

 By:s/Benjamin J. Codispoti 

 Benjamin J. Codispoti, Deputy Clerk
| 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/ Timothy P. Mihalick               |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Timothy P. Mihalick                   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | July 14, 2010                         |
#### The Jackson Mining Company v. The Auditor General.

*Statute construed: Mining companies: Specific tax: Protective taxation; Interstate commerce.*The statute *{Laws*1866, *p. 244)*imposing a specific tax upon corporations and companies engaged in mining, smelting and refining ores in this state, 'which provides for the payment of a tax of one and a half cents per ton on all iron ore or mineral obtained and exported from the state before being smelted, but exempts from taxation all that is smelted within the state, is held void as an attempt in effect to impose a tax upon inter-state commerce.

*Heard October 14.*

*Decided October 19.*

Appeal in Chancery from Marquette Circuit.

This bill was filed to restrain the collection of the specific tax therein, complained of, and was heard in the court below on demurrer to- the bill, and the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. The complainant appealed.

*O. I. Wallcer,*for complainant.

*Andreio J. Smith, Attorney General,*and *Harsen D. Smith,*for defendant.

*489Cooley, J:

The only question discussed in this case is that of the right of the state to collect the specific tax provided for by “an act imposing a specific tax upon corporations and chartered companies engaged in the business of mining, smelting and refining ores in this state,” approved March 10, 1865.— *Laws of 1866, p. 244.*The complainant is a corporation existing under special charter, and pays a tax on its capital stock which the charter imposed, and to which the tax provided for by this act was to be additional.

The question arises upon the discrimination which the act of 1865 makes between the mineral mined and which is reduced within the state and that which is removed from the state before being smelted. All the former is exempted from taxation; all the latter is taxed one cent and a half per ton. Various objections are made to the act, but we shall notice but one. That is, that such a tax is a tax on inter-state commerce. It is so in express terms. It says plainly and specifically to these several companies, “for every ton of mineral mined by you, you shall pay one cent and a half for the privilege of transporting it from the state for reduction.” The purpose is manifest; it is to induce the working up of the mineral within the state. But this is only an application of the doctrine of protection, not only as between the state and foreign countries, but also as between the several states.

The decree must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer, and leave the parties to such further proceedings as they may be advised to take.

Geaves, Oh. J., and Cahpbell, J., concurred.

Marstok, J., did not sit, having been concerned in the case.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>






EXHIBIT 27 FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE (FDS)




<ARTICLE>                                               5




<MULTIPLIER>                                          1000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                              6,283
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     284,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  352,518
<PP&E>                                            622,043
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,161,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             387,620
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        529,862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,161,035
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,634,031
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,500,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     (624)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 10,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   123,945
<INCOME-TAX>                                       50,443
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                73,502
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       73,502
<EPS-BASIC>                                        2.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        2.68






</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential

l'ztate5 Court of Appeaty

for tbe ffeberat circuit

AQUEL RASHEED,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

2010-7087

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims in case no. 09-3758, Judge Ronald M.

Holdaway.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to stay the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court's final disposition of

Henderson v. Shinseki, 2010 WL 752370 (U.S. June 28,

2010).
RASHEED v. DVA 2

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion to stay the briefing schedule pending the

Supreme Court's final disposition of Henderson is granted.

The parties are directed to inform this court, within 14

days of the Supreme Court's final disposition of Henderson, concerning how they believe that this appeal should

proceed.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 2 7 2111(1

Date

Is! Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Esq.

Meredyth Cohen Havasy, Esq.

s20 ILED

U.S. COURTOF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 2 7 2010

JAN HORBALY

CLERK
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 Annual Report of Comet Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Richard B. Stuart and Jack M. Gertino, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

    (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
           or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: April 12, 2005              /s/ Richard B. Stuart
                                  ------------------------------------------
                                  Richard B. Stuart, Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 12, 2005              /s/ Jack M. Gertino
                                  ------------------------------------------
                                  Jack M. Gertino, Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3590-3591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01380]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's (NSB) Committee on Oversight hereby 
gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction 
of National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science 
Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 26, 2022, from 1:00-2:15 p.m. EST.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation.

STATUS: Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of 
the meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Committee Chair's opening remarks; Approval 
of prior Committee minutes; Discussion of Committee plans for the 
remainder of the NSB term; Committee Chair's opening remarks; 
Presentation on NSF's Annual Performance Report, and Committee 
discussion.

PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:  Between 1:00-1:30 p.m. EST, the following 
matters will be considered: Committee Chair's opening remarks; Approval 
of prior Committee minutes; Discussion of Committee plans for the 
remainder of the NSB term.

[[Page 3591]]


PORTIONS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC:  Between 1:30-2:15 p.m. EST, the 
following matters will be considered: Committee Chair's opening 
remarks; Presentation on NSF's Annual Performance Report, and Committee 
discussion.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, 703/292-7000. Members of the public may observe the 
public portion of the meeting, which will be streamed to the NSB 
YouTube channel. A link to the YouTube page can be found at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/index.jsp#up.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-01380 Filed 1-20-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,459
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    105,679
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        516,299
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,934
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 660,486
<DEPOSITS>                                     481,799
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             20,442
<LONG-TERM>                                    110,321
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,273
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 660,486
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,968
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,494
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,462
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,325
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,655
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,807
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,870
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,124
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,124
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,388
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.08
<LOANS-NON>                                        707
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,496
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,991
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,164
<RECOVERIES>                                       237
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,934
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,934
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

MARK A. SCOTT, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-171 

 

vs. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 Defendant. 

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”) 

(DOC. 22); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $5,500.00 IN EAJA FEES 

 

 This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees and costs under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $5,500.00. Doc. 22. 

Based upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met 

for the reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation 

(doc. 22); and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees and costs in the amount of $5,500.00. As no 

further matters remain pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s 

docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 5, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
#### Rainey *v.*Rainey.

Opinion delivered March 24, 1930.

*R. M. Hutchins*and *Coulter S Coulter,*for appellant.

*Marsh, McKay $ Marlin,*for appellee.

Humphkeys, J.

The only question for decision presented on this appeal is the priority between two chattel mortgages, both of which were executed by W. P. Rainey, the first in point of time to appellee, J. Gr. Newkirk; and the second in point of time to appellant, R. T. Rainey. The question of priority, if raised at all in the trial court, turned upon whether the J. Gr. Newkirk mortgage had the proper' indorsement thereon at the time it was filed in the office of the circuit clerk and ex-officio recorder of Union County. Section 7384 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest provides, in substance, that a mortgage of personal property shall become a lien upon the property therein described against strangers from the time of filing, provided the following words are indorsed thereon, “This instrument is to be filed, but not recorded,” and which indorsement is signed by the mortgagee, his agent or attorney.

The trial court decreed the J. Gr. Newkirk mortgage prior and paramount to the R. T. Rainey mortgage.

Appellant contends for a reversal of the decree upon the alleged ground that the record reflects at page 110 of the transcript that the R. T. Rainey mortgage, filed after the J. Gr. Newkirk mortgage, had the following notation on the back thereof: ‘ ‘ This instrument is to be filed but not recorded. R. T. Rainey, mortgagee”; whereas, the J. Gr. Newkirk mortgage, found on pages 6 to 11 of the transcript, had the following notation on the back: *407“Filed but not recorded,” which, it is claimed, was not a proper filing for a chattel mortgage under the section of the statute referred to.

It is true that a purported copy of the Newkirk mortgage appears as an exhibit to appellant’s complaint on the pages of the transcript referred to, and that the copy does not reflect the indorsement required by the statute, but page 76 of the transcript reflects that the original J. Gr. Newkirk mortgagee on file in the clerk’s office of Union County had the following notation on the back thereof: “This instrument is to be filed but not recorded,” which is signed by J. Gr. Newkirk.

The indorsement complies with the statute, and fully sustains the decree of the trial court to the effect that said mortgage was prior and paramount to the R. T. Rainey mortgage.

No error appearing, the decree is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40960

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-168-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Juan Flores

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Flores has filed a response, he has requested to substitute 

retained counsel for appointed counsel, and he seeks leave to file a substitute 

brief.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40960 Document: 00512790753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/02/2014
No. 13-40960

Included in Flores’s response is his argument that the FPD has rendered 

ineffective assistance on appeal by failing to order a rearraignment transcript 

and assess whether the district court properly admonished him about certain 

aspects of his plea and whether the Government complied with the plea 

agreement. We generally do not review claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel on direct appeal. United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 

2014), petition for cert. filed (June 4, 2014) (No. 13-10484). However, this is a 

rare case in which the record permits us to “fairly evaluate the merits of the 

claim.” Id. In light of Flores’s declaration evincing his intent to appeal only 

his sentence, the FPD’s omissions in this regard are not objectively 

unreasonable. See United States v. Garcia, 483 F.3d 289, 290-91 (5th Cir. 

2007). Further, assuming deficient performance, Flores cannot show prejudice 

because we now have access to the rearraignment transcript and have 

independently examined the record for any potentially nonfrivolous appellate 

issues. Absent a showing of both deficient performance and prejudice, Flores’s 

ineffective-assistance argument fails. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 

668, 687 (1984).

Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Flores’s response, and the 

record, including a copy of the rearraignment transcript, leads us to concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, the motions to 

substitute counsel and for leave to file a substitute brief are DENIED, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40960 Document: 00512790753 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/02/2014