alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.D






Exhibit 4(d)




SECOND AMENDMENT TO




MERCANTILE BANK CORPORATION




EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN OF 2002




     THIS AMENDMENT to the Mercantile Bank Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan of 2002 is
adopted effective as of March 26, 2009.



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Mercantile Bank Corporation (the “Company”) adopted
the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of 2002 effective as of October 1, 2002, and subsequently amended
the plan by a First Amendment effective as of February 28, 2009 (as so amended, the
“Plan”);



     WHEREAS, Section 10.2 of the Plan authorizes the Committee or the Board of Directors of the
Company to adopt amendments to the Plan;



     WHEREAS, the Company wishes to revise the method of determining the Fair Market Value of the
shares of Common Stock purchased on the Stock Purchase Date;



     NOW, THEREFORE, this Amendment is adopted, effective as of March 26, 2009:



     1. Section 2.8 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to provide as follows:



     “2.8 “Fair Market Value” as of any Stock Purchase Date means the consolidated closing bid
price of the Common Stock reported on The Nasdaq Stock Market (or other stock exchange or quotation
system on which the Company’s Common Stock may be traded on the date in question) on such Stock
Purchase Date or, if such Stock Purchase Date is not a trading day, the most recent date on which
shares of Common Stock were traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market (or such other stock exchange or
quotation system). If the Company’s Common Stock is not listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market, or
another stock exchange or quotation system on the Stock Purchase Date in question, the Fair Market
Value shall be determined by any means deemed fair and reasonable by the Committee, which
determination shall be final and binding on all parties.”



     2. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not defined have the meanings given to them in
the Plan. Except as hereby amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by an authorized officer of the Company.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	MERCANTILE BANK CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Michael H. Price
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Its:
	 	Chairman and CEO





Approved by the Board of Directors on March 26, 2009

Effective: March 26, 2009




2
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of SED International Holdings, Inc. listed below of our report dated October 3,
2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SED International
Holdings, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June
30, 2003.

     - Registration Statement No. 333-47172 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1999
       Stock Option Plan

     - Registration Statement No. 333-44103 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1997
       Stock Option Plan

     - Registration Statement No. 333-35055 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
       Southern Electronics Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan

     - Registration Statement No. 33-64133 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
       Southern Electronics Corporation 1991 Stock Option Plan

     - Registration Statement No. 33-64135 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
       Southern Electronics Corporation 1995 Formula Stock Option Plan

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
October 3, 2003

                                        55
Ladon M. GREEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0960

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1246 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow ranchers and farmers to use 

an alternative calculation for a maximum loan amount under the paycheck protection program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2021 

Mr. KIND (for himself and Mr. FORTENBERRY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow ranchers and 

farmers to use an alternative calculation for a maximum 

loan amount under the paycheck protection program. 

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 ‘‘Paycheck Protection 

5 Clarification for Producers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM LOAN CAL7 CULATION FOR FARMERS OR RANCHERS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a)(36)(V)(i) of the 

9 Small Business Act (as amended by the Economic Aid to 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1246 IH

1 Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act 

2 (Public Law 116–260)) is amended by striking subclause 

3 (I) and redesignating subclauses (II) and (III) as sub4 clauses (I) and (II), respectively. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para7 graph (2), the amendments made by subsection (a) 

8 shall be effective as if included in the CARES Act 

9 (Public Law 116–136; 134 Stat. 281) and shall 

10 apply to any loan made pursuant to section 7(a)(36) 

11 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)) 

12 before, on, or after the date of enactment of this 

13 Act, including forgiveness of such a loan. 

14 (2) EXCLUSION OF LOANS ALREADY FOR15 GIVEN.—The amendments made by subsection (a) 

16 shall not apply to a loan made pursuant to section 

17 7(a)(36) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

18 636(a)(36)) for which the borrower received forgive19 ness before the date of enactment of this Act under 

20 section 1106 of the CARES. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 25, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                 MAR-25-1997
<CASH>                                                           157,992
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      2,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                        6,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 174,837
<PP&E>                                                           367,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   569,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             43,076
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                         409,590
<OTHER-SE>                                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     569,224
<SALES>                                                          130,256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 130,256
<CGS>                                                             45,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     97,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   4,643
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   28,821
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      10,603
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      18,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0.44
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.4



Summary Sheet of Ameren Corporation Non-Management Director Compensation 
(Effective as of January 1, 2019)    


	
		
	$90,000
	Base cash annual retainer payable in twelve equal installments;



	Approximately $135,000 of shares


	Shares of the Company’s common stock to be awarded to new Directors upon election and annually to all Directors on or about January 1 of each year;

	$30,000
	Additional annual cash retainer for Lead Director;



	$20,000
	Additional annual cash retainer for Audit and Risk Committee and 
Nuclear and Operations Committee Chair;



	$17,500
	Additional annual cash retainer for Human Resources Committee Chair; 



	$15,000
	Additional annual cash retainer for all other Committee Chairs (currently Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Finance Committee); 



	$12,500
	Additional annual cash retainer for Audit and Risk Committee and Nuclear and Operations Committee members; 



	$10,000
	Additional annual cash retainer for Human Resources Committee members; and 



	$7,500
	Additional annual cash retainer for members of all other Committees.



	 
	Customary and usual travel expenses to be reimbursed and eligibility to
participate in a nonqualified deferred compensation program.
Larry D. HALSTEAD & Carol Halstead, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4069

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.2

Certifications

I, Stephen E. Hare,
certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Office Depot, Inc.; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen E. Hare
|Name:               |  | Stephen E. Hare                                     
|Title:              |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Date:               |  | April 26, 2017
AAM

- 13

- 067

- E December 4, 2012

Exemption No. 10666 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 1197

Ms. Laverne Moyer Substance Prevention/Abuse Program Manager Moyer Aviation, Inc.

3800 Sullivan Trail

Eas ton, PA 18040

Dear Ms. Moyer :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The B asis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 29, 2012 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

on behalf of Moyer Aviation, Inc. ( Moyer Aviation )

, for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exe mption, if granted,

would allow Moyer Aviation

, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under one testing program

.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Moyer Aviation

.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all materi al respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitio ner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduc t two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has deleg ated to me, I hereby grant Moyer Aviation , Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the
extent necessary to allow Moyer Aviation

, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under one testing program , subj ect to the

conditions and limit ation s described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. E mployees of Moyer Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testin g program must be implemented under the auspices of

the Moyer Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on November 30, 2014 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser , M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Marlon Shanti POTTS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Nos. 1D17-0378 1D17-0855 (consolidated for disposition)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
#### Alan Andrew MACKETY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stephanie HOLLEMBAEK; United States of America, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6488

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 4, 2017

Decided: August 15, 2017

Alan Andrew Mackety, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alan Andrew Mackety, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Mackety v. Hollembaek,*No. 5:16-hc-02120-D, 2017 WL 1162176 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2017). 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*
Reginald L. STREETER, Jr., DOC #H37829, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D16-3963 2D16-5136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Tremayne Lloyd TENN, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Daniel JUNIOR, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2225

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus is denied.
* 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. 97-40659

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUADALUPE BERLANGA-ESQUIVEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-97-CR-95-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 10, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guadalupe Berlanga-Esquivel argues that the indictment to

which he pleaded guilty did not allege that he had been convicted

previously of a felony, he pleaded guilty to simple reentry, see

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and therefore, the increase to his sentence

based on his prior felony conviction is improper. In light of

controlling authority, see United States v. Vasquez-Olvera, 999

F.2d 943, 945-46 (5th Cir. 1993), the conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.
Landon GILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-660

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jack POLSKY, Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Appellee.

No. 4D16-2932

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 5, 2018]

Stephen L. Cook, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.

Kristie Hatcher-Bolin of GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, and Thomas H. Loffredo and Rebecca A. Rodriguez of GrayRobinson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Ciklin, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1288 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1288

    To amend the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act to extend the 
    authorization of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 
                  Commission, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2021

 Mr. Clyburn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act to extend the 
    authorization of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor 
                  Commission, 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. GULLAH/GEECHEE CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT AMENDMENTS.

    The Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act (Public Law 109-338; 16 
U.S.C. 461 note) is amended as follows:
            (1) Commission.--In section 295D(d), by striking ``15 
        years'' and inserting ``25 years''.
            (2) Meeting requirements.--By repealing section 295E(a)(4).
            (3) Funding.--In section 295K(a), by striking 
        ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$30,000,000''.
            (4) Technical amendment.--By striking ``Gullah/Geechee'' 
        each place it appears in any typeface and inserting ``Gullah 
        Geechee'' in the respective typeface.
                                 <all>
```
Chadrick T. THOMAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D15-5661

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Billy Vernon HENDERSON v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-0146

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          408020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   335910
<ALLOWANCES>                                     61802
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                750091
<PP&E>                                          571846
<DEPRECIATION>                                  170410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4008364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2099063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         13672
<OTHER-SE>                                     1895629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4008364
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2898495
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3284584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                286992
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               22839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (695920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (695920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (695920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)



</TABLE>
Guy F. HAMMOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4379

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.