alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cnsl_Ex_10_9


		
			Exhibit 10.9
		

		
			FIFTH AMENDMENT
		

		
			TO THE
		

		
			CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.
		

		
			2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
		

		
			WHEREAS, Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective May 5, 2009, and as further amended (the “Plan”); and
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) now deems it appropriate to amend the Change in Control definition in the Plan.
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby approves the following amendments, effective with respect to awards granted under the Plan on and after October 29, 2018 as well as all outstanding awards previously granted under the Plan:
		

		
			1.Section 2.5 of the Plan is amended by deleting the words “through a transaction which has a ‘closing’”.
		

		
			2.Section 2.5(c) of the Plan is amended by deleting the words “the stockholders of the Company approve any” and replacing them with “the consummation of a”.
		

		
			3.Section 2.5(d) of the Plan is amended by deleting the words “the stockholders of the Company any reorganization, merger, consolidation or share exchange” and replacing them with “the consummation of a reorganization, merger, consolidation or share exchange involving the Company”.
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						*

					
					
						*

					
					
						*

				



		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. has caused this Fifth Amendment to be executed on the 29th day of October, 2018.
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Steven L. Childers

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Title:

					
					
						Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Ross, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                              
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard A. Ross          
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Richard A. Ross              
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | (principal financial officer)
L.G., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1718

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 31, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Wilber Lee Cooke, II, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Caroline Johnson Levine, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

*419L.G. petitions for a writ of habeas corpus for his release from his involuntary confinement at the Halifax Health Medical Center (Medical Center) in Daytona Beach, Florida. In May 2018, pursuant to the Baker Act,1 L.G. was admitted to the Medical Center for involuntary examination. On May 24, 2018, the trial court held a Baker Act hearing. After hearing the treating physician's testimony that L.G. would benefit from ongoing care, the trial court ordered L.G. to remain in the Medical Center for four weeks under a continuance, over L.G.'s objection.

L.G. asserts that he is entitled to immediate release because the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that he is a danger to himself or others. The State properly concedes error and agrees that this court should grant the writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we grant L.G.'s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order his immediate release. *See**C.W. v. State*, 214 So.3d 796, 797 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (granting habeas corpus petition where trial court involuntarily committed petitioner without clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger to himself or others) (citing § 394.467(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; *In re Lehrke*, 12 So.3d 307, 308-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ). No motion for rehearing will be entertained.

PETITION GRANTED.

EVANDER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

1

§ 394.463(2)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (2017).
### •MY " : '• ' 2e « U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ''^^ ^ ' " ' "^^^ ^ 

### OFFIC E O F HEARING

S ' [ EARIN G DOCKE T WASHINGTON , D.C . I n th e Matte r

o f Empire Flight

Academ y FDM S No . FAA-2011-029 0 AGENCY' S SECON D AMENDE D COMPLAIN T • > ^^S^S ; —,—,' — Th e Federal Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) , b y counsel , hereb y amend s Sectio n II,;- ' C D Paragrap h (10) , o f

it s Complain t

i n thi s matte r

to rea da s follows :

10 . Empire Fligh t

Academy thereb y operate dth e aircraf t o n Jun e 1 , 200 9 whe n th e aircraf t wa s no t i n a n airworth y condition . RespectMl y submitted . Alfre d RJohnson , Jr . Regiona l Counse l By : 

### ^AA^lJe^^.- _ Zachary m . Berman Attorne y Date : Ma y 19,201 1CERTMCAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif y tha t the foregoin

g Agency' s Secon

d Amende d Complain

t has bee n sen t thi s dat e b y &s t clas s mail an

d facsimil e to the following : Gregor y S . Winton , Esq . Aviatio n La

w Expert s , LL

C On e Researc h Court , Suit

e 45 0 Rockville , MD 2085 0 Telefax : (301)294-252 5 Th e Honorable Roimi

e A . Yode r Chie f Administrative La

w Judg e U.S . Departmen

t o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo

mE12-32 0 120 0 New Jerse

y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Telefax : (202)366-753 6 I hereby certif

y tha t the foregoin

g Agency' s Secon

d Amende d Complain

t has bee n sen t thi s dat e b y &s t clas s mail to tiie following: : Federa l Aviatio n Administration (Origina

l an d on e copy ) 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Athi : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk, AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Suit

e

Date : MAY 1 9 201 1 7 - ^ ^ . , , Zis aHook

s //^^aralega l Specialis t Federa l Aviatio n Administration Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 235 SSM 24 The People &c., Appellant, v. Robert L. Ingram, Respondent.

Submitted by David A. Heraty, for appellant. Submitted by Sherry A. Chase, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The determination as to whether police have reasonable - 1 -- 2 - SSM No. 24

suspicion to justify a stop involves a mixed question of law and fact (People v Woods, 98 NY2d 627, 628 [2002]). Where, as here, there exists record support for the Appellate Division's resolution of this question, the issue is beyond this Court's further review. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur. Decided December 16, 2014

- 2 -
Dennis MCNEIL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2591

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
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 on Form 10-KSB of Genesis Bioventures,
Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  each  of the undersigned 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;  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/  E.  Greg  McCartney
                                          -----------------------
                                          E.  Greg  McCartney
                                          Chief  Executive  Officer

                                          Dated:  June  15,  2005


                                          /s/  T.J.  Louis  McKinney
                                          -----------------------
                                          T.J.  Louis  McKinney
                                          Chief  Financial  Officer

                                          Dated:  June  15,  2005


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Christopher SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50009 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Christopher Sandoval, Pro Se

*351Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent James Christopher Sandoval has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Sandoval has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
James A. MAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4333

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,538
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     18,869
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        143,615
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,939
<DEPOSITS>                                     142,385
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,110
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,657
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,775
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,290
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 174,939
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,538
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  280
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,818
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,456
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,695
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,123
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      201
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,046
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,046    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       668
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.77
<LOANS-NON>                                        434
<LOANS-PAST>                                       996
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   103
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,818
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,908
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       61
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,058
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,403
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            655
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abdel Hamilton, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 104]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Cohen, J.), rendered February 24, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 271⁄2 to 55 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]), and the jury’s mixed verdict does not warrant a different result *(see People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557 [2000]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the scientific evidence did not contradict the eyewitnesses’ testimony. Furthermore, there was a lengthy chain of corroborating evidence.

The court properly admitted, as consciousness of guilt evidence, documents wherein the author refers to the instant case in great detail and calls upon his fellow gang members to murder the witnesses against him. The inference is inescapable, from the contents of the documents and the circumstances under which they were discovered, that defendant was the author *(see e.g. People v Thomas,*272 AD2d 892 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 858 [2000]; *see also People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286, 291-293 [1980]). The introduction of a photocopy did not violate the best evidence rule since the People sufficiently explained the unavailability of the primary evidence and did not procure its loss or destruction in bad faith *(see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*84 NY2d 639, 643-644 [1994]). The court properly admitted evidence of defendant’s affiliation with the Bloods gang, since this evidence was highly relevant to explain *406the documents in question and to establish that defendant was the author of the letter *(see People v Boyd,*164 AD2d 800, 803 [1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 904 [1991]). Defendant’s various procedural claims regarding these documents are unavailing.

The admission into evidence of a piece of paper containing defendant’s girlfriend’s name and phone number, which defendant had given to a police informant, did not violate defendant’s right to counsel, since this item was not an incriminating statement deliberately elicited by an agent of the government, nor was it part of a process of interrogation *(Kuhlmann v Wilson,*477 US 436, 459 [1986]; *Maine v Moulton,*474 US 159, 176 [1985]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.
Shacobi WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-3567

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2018

Shacobi Williams, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Lewis, and Ray, JJ., concur.
Charles NICHOLS, DOC #072140, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2137

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 8, 2017.

Rachael E. Bushey of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Oscar Dan DAVIS, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-1749

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Scotsman® 

Ice Systems 

SCN60 - 60 Ib Nugget Ice Machine 

Brilliance~ Under-Counter Nugget Ice Machine 

Features 

15" cabinet width, produces over 80 Ibs. of nugget ice in 24 hours. Stores up to 26 

Ibs. 

Nugget ice is made from bits of compacted ice that are soft, chewable and absorb 

the flavor of the beverage. 

Uses 40% less energy and more than 50% less water than stand-alone, dedicated 

ice mac hines. 

Designed with sleek new styling and virtually disappears when installed with a 

custom wood front that matches surrounding cabinetry. Finish options to choose 

from include, stainless, black or white front panel kits if a custom wood front panel 

is not used. A kit is available to adapt an existing custom wood front panel on the 

new ice machine. 

Outdoor approved. 

Lighted bin and self-closing door. 

User-friendly control panel informs whether power is on, alerts a no-water condition, and a time to clean reminder. 

Available with built-in drain pump. 

model shown is 5CN60PA-' 55 

24 Hour Ice Production & Storage Capacity CERTIFIED 

4D 70°F/21°CAir 

SooFI1 OOC Water 

Ib/kg 

85/39 

Control Board 

Scotsman Ice Systems 

77S Corporate Woods Parkway 

Vernon Hills, IL 60061 

90°F/32°C Air 

70°F/21°C Water 

Ib/kg 

60/27 

Bin Storage Capacity 

Ib/kg 

26/12 

Scoop 

-~~= 

Nugget Ice Warranty 

Intertek 9001:2000 

• 1 years parts and labor on all components . 

The Original Chewable Ice~. 

50ft ice ideal for beverages 

and blended drinks. 

• 5 years parts on the compressor only. 

Warranty valid in North America. 

1-800-SCOTSMAN 

Fax: 847-913-9844 

www.scotsman-ice.com 

E-mi!lll: customer.servlce@5cotsman-lce.com 

l/") 

n 

z 

(J\ 

o 

I 

(J\ 

o 

IT' 

Z 

C 

LO 

LO 

ro 

,..-+ 

n 

ro 

$: 

OJ 

n 

:::::r 

:::J 

ro
#### Paul Joseph ZEEDYK, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-20753

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 25, 2017

Paul Joseph Zeedyk, Pro Se

Jennifer Wissinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, Peter Samuel McGuire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A jury convicted Paul Joseph Zeedyk, Texas prisoner # 1608279, of felony driving while intoxicated and found that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the offense. The district court denied Zee-dyk’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging that criminal judgment, and this court denied a certificate of appealability (COA). After the Suprenie Court denied Zeedyk’s ensuing petition for a writ of certiorari, Zeedyk filed a motion in the district court that he styled as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. In the motion, Zeedyk sought relief from the district court’s denial of his § 2254 claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the deadly-weapon finding.

Zeedyk moves for a COA to appeal the district court’s denial of the purported Rule 60(b) motion. Because Zeedyk’s Rule 60(b) motion challenged the district court’s determination that the deadly-weapon claim in his § 2254 application failed on the merits, the Rule 60(b) motion constituted an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 532 *&*n.4, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); *see also Preiser v. Rodriguez,*411 U.S. 475, 487, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (holding that a writ of habeas corpus is a state prisoner’s sole federal remedy for challenging the duration of his imprisonment in order to obtain a speedier release in the future). Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Rule 60(b) motion, and we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the motion on the merits. *See United States v. Key,*205 F.3d 773, 774-75 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction, and the motion for a COA is DENIED as moot.

*

 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.
David M. WILKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3524

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Christopher M. OXENDINE-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. David MITCHELL; Terry Lemon; Michael L. Brooks; John Aaron; Jane Mims; Angela Rorie; Kenneth A. Beaver; Kristopher C. Kiker; Milessia Abernathy, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7362

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

Christopher M. Oxendine-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher M. Oxendine-Bey appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Oxendine-Bey v. R. Mitchell,*
      *183No. 3:14-cv-00651-FDW, 2016 WL 4646447 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 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*