alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3






EXHIBIT 10.3




Form of Senior Executive Officer Letter

Agreement and Waiver Under the

TARP Capital Purchase Program




     I, [NAME], an executive officer of Northern States Financial Corporation intending to
be bound, hereby acknowledge and agree as follows:




In consideration for the benefits I will
receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the United States Department of the
Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the
United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are
required to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.




I acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation, bonus,
incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including
so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I
participate as they relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt
securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program.




This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state
related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without
limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I would otherwise receive, any
challenge to the process by which this regulation was adopted and any tort or
constitutional claim about the effect of these regulations on my employment relationship.


Agreed and acknowledged as of February 20, 2009.




	 	 	 
	 

Name: [NAME]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancesset forth inLocalRule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30585

Summary Calendar

TRAFFIC SCAN NETWORK, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARC E. WINSTON; TRAFFIC CAMERA

REPORTS, INC.; MARCO OUTDOOR

ADVERTISING, INC.; WINSTON

COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION;

WINSTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(92-CV-2243 R)

February 15, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thismatteris before the court on appeal of defendants’motion forsummaryjudgment

and the dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff’s state law claims. Having considered the

briefs and summary judgment record, on the facts as found, authorities cited, and analysis
 

1

In footnote 9 of the Memorandum and Order (Vol. 5, p. 1063) the second reference to

Traffic Camera was inadvertent; it should be “Traffic Scan.”

2

made by the district court in its comprehensive and scholarly Memorandum and Order1

rendered May 24, 1995 and entered May 25, 1995, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6085

KABIL ANTON DJENASEVIC,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION BECKLEY 

HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DR. HUGHES, DDS,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:14-cv-14596)

Submitted: July 20, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished 

per curiam opinion.
2

Kabil Anton Djenasevic, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM: 

Kabil Anton Djenasevic appeals the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his complaint filed under the Federal Tort 

Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (2012), 

and denying his request for leave to amend his complaint. 

The district court originally rejected Djenasevic’s request 

to amend as moot based on its dismissal of his original 

complaint. That dismissal was, however, vacated by this court’s 

decision in Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 604 F. App’x 

328 (4th Cir. June 16, 2015) (No. 15-6076). On remand, the 

court did not directly rule on the request to amend. Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court 

should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” 

which we have construed to mean “that leave to amend a pleading 

should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to 

the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the 

moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.” 

Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court 

has not ruled on the merits of Djenasevic’s request to amend, we 

remand for the district court to specifically address

Djenasevic’s request and any Government response. 
4

Turning to Djenasevic’s FTCA claim, we have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

disposition of that claim for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 5:14-cv-14596 

(S.D. W. Va. Jan. 11, 2016). 

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1188 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to disclose 

information on pay raises made to executives and non-executive employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2021 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 

issuers to disclose information on pay raises made to 

executives and non-executive employees, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Greater Accountability 

5 in Pay Act’’. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1188 IH

1 SEC. 2. PAY RAISE DISCLOSURES. 

2 Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

3 (15 U.S.C. 78m) is amended by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(s) PAY RAISE DISCLOSURES.—An issuer required 

6 to file an annual report under this section or section 15(d), 

7 that is not an emerging growth company, shall include in 

8 such report— 

9 ‘‘(1) the percentage increase in the median of 

10 the annual total compensation of all executive offi11 cers (as such term is defined in section 240.3b–7 of 

12 title 17, Code of Federal Regulations) of the issuer 

13 over the last completed fiscal year; 

14 ‘‘(2) the percentage increase in the median of 

15 the annual total compensation of all employees of 

16 the issuer, excluding executive officers, over the last 

17 completed fiscal year; 

18 ‘‘(3) the ratio of the percentage described in 

19 paragraph (1) to the percentage described in para20 graph (2); 

21 ‘‘(4) a comparison of the percentage described 

22 in paragraph (1) to the percentage change over the 

23 same period in the Consumer Price Index for All 

24 Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor 

25 Statistics of the Department of Labor; and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1188 IH

1 ‘‘(5) a comparison of the percentage described 

2 in paragraph (2) to the percentage change over the 

3 same period in the Consumer Price Index for All 

4 Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor 

5 Statistics of the Department of Labor.’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                          39,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    115,739
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               186,037
<PP&E>                                         199,473
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,276
<BONDS>                                        184,509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     69,365
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (36,707)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,443
<SALES>                                      1,292,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,292,267
<CGS>                                          997,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  997,032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               258,960
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,404
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,627
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   143.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   143.58
        

</TABLE>
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

154) IV-C-121 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:59 AM Sheet 154 of 232 
P.2 

• < # 

•j *r . 

JUL I I (988 

Rr. Samuel Leonard 

Auto Emission Control 

Environmental Activities Staff 

General Motors Corporation 

30400 Hound Road 

Warren, HI 48090-9015 

Dear Mr, Leonard: 

This letter is in response to a recent phone conversation 

with Hr. Jia Pasek of your staff concerning GM'c decision to 

withhold certain General Rotors Uniform ?eat Specifications 

(GMUTS) from our review. in April, 1988 we had requested 

copies of 19 specific test sequences from an extended list of 

tests which Gl. had included in its written comments on our 

onboard refueling control NPRtf. The listing was included in 

the GH comsents in response to e question about how you test 

and evaluate your vehicle fuel systems for durability. After 

reviewing the list, we had identified these specific tests as 

ones which seened to bear -directly on evaporative and refueling 

controls. 

At the time of our request, ve were informed that copies 

would be furnisher? as soon as they could be collected, although 

they night he submitted as GM confidential documents. There 

have beer, several staff contacts between my staff and yours 

sincf- April, and cr. each of these occasions wc- have r»een 

=ssured that the requested cocujp:;ntr vsre being collected. On 

June 3, 1935 wc were advise-; that thf- documents b.-vd been 

assembled and would be forwarded within a few 3ays. However, 

on Juno ?7, 193.3 wr wor-? advis^o hy ?*r. Pasek that

 rSA had 

decided to withheld there "ccurent's frcp EPA. 

I a- writing to request th?. v ~*.\ reconsider tnis decision, 

.ino provide the subject drjeurcent'-- for our review. We believe 

•jhat these documents are i.-nportTnt for our full understanding 

of some of the concerns about onboard safety and durability 

which GM has raised. Tie are aware that these issues are 

important to CF!, so we exrect that you would desire to provide 

•JE as r.uch supporting factual information as possible. Since 

the materials have now already been collected, ve a}so believe 

chat this request represents no significant resource inpact for 
• % -**? / 

«SL»»c Aue b^«°* 

-Sfi-pl *-Yyv 

P.3 

4

 * > 
P.4 

/ v 

Because or the time which has passed since our original 

request for these test procedures, our analysis of onboard 

safety issues is already nearing completion. Therefore, we ask 

that you respond to this request and supply the documents we 

have identified at the earliest possible time. 

,-1 - : 

' f 

Sincerely yours, 

Charles L. Gray, Jr. 

Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

6167W 

«-- ~ TL •*.. I-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,305,448
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,167,090
<ALLOWANCES>                                   103,312
<INVENTORY>                                  4,254,073
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,405,563
<PP&E>                                       7,185,484
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,583,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,586,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,851,388
<BONDS>                                      2,179,759
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        6,923,008
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,938
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,773,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,586,766
<SALES>                                     15,152,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,437,429
<CGS>                                       11,315,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,718,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             112,864
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,393,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,533,312)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,533,312)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.32)


</TABLE>
#### Group Insurance Company of Michigan v Czopek,

No. 90390.

To be argued and submitted with *Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Piccard,*No. 89487, and *Auto-Owners Ins Co v Churchman,*No. 88923. Court of Appeals No. 127020 (on remand).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BRIAN L. COVERDALE,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 156, 2023

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID Nos. 2006004121 (N)

§ 2003011608 (N)

§ 

§ 

Submitted: June 29, 2023

Decided: August 15, 2023

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 

affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court’s judgment 

should be affirmed. On July 15, 2021, the appellant, Brian Coverdale, pleaded guilty 

to manslaughter, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, driving 

under the influence of drugs, and speeding. On October 29, 2021, the Superior Court 

sentenced Coverdale to an aggregate of twelve years of incarceration followed by 

decreasing levels of supervision. Coverdale did not appeal his convictions or 

sentence and, accordingly, his convictions became final thirty days thereafter.1 On 

March 24, 2023—more than one year and three months after his convictions became 

1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(1).
2

final—Coverdale filed his first motion for postconviction relief, raising claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by 

denying Coverdale’s motion for postconviction relief: the motion was procedurally 

barred as untimely filed2 and did not satisfy the pleading requirements of Superior 

Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(5). 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm be

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice

2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (providing in part that “[a] motion for postconviction relief may 

not be filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final”).
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument.

1 We grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 3/19/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR DAVIS, Jr., ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. 95-6264 ) (D.C. No. CIV-94-2139-R) LARRY A. FIELDS; RON ) (W.D. Okla.) CHAMPION, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. **

Plaintiff Oscar Davis Jr., appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s Judgment granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 1 Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging that Defendants violated his rights to due process and equalprotection by removing him from a lower security prison facility to a higher one. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The district court referred Plaintiff’s complaint to the magistrate judge for recommendation. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond to the motion for summary judgment, and the court ordered a Martinez report. After review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Martinez report, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the magistrate recommended that the district court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous. The district court adopted the recommendation after a de novo review, granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous. On appeal Plaintiff argues that the district court erred by granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint because Defendants violated his due process and equal protection rights. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the entire record before us, and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the magistrate’s recommendation.
AFFIRMED

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
snfca10k123108ex10-23.htm


    
      

      

    

    
      EXHIBIT
10.23

      


      Subsidiaries
of Security National

      Financial
Corporation

      as of
March 31, 2009

      


      


      Security
National Life Insurance Company

      


      SecurityNational
Mortgage Company

      


      Memorial
Estates, Inc.

      


      Memorial
Mortuary

      


      Paradise
Chapel Funeral Home, Inc.

      


      California
Memorial Estates, Inc.

      


      Cottonwood
Mortuary, Inc.

      


      Deseret
Memorial, Inc.

      


      Holladay
Cottonwood Memorial Foundation

      


      Holladay
Memorial Park, Inc.

      


      Greer-Wilson
Funeral Home, Inc.

      


      Crystal
Rose Funeral Home, Inc.

      


      Insuradyne
Corporation

      


      Security
National Funding Company

      


      Security
National Life Insurance Company of Louisiana (Formerly Paramount Security Life
InsuranceCompany)

      


      Security
National Capital, Inc.

      


      Memorial
Insurance Company of America

      


      Capital
Reserve Life Insurance Company

      


      C & J
Financial, LLC

      


      Southern
Security Life Insurance Company (a Mississippi domiciled Company)

      


      Marketing
Source Center, Inc. dba Security National Travel Services

      


      Security
National Reverse Mortgage of Utah