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










AMENDMENT SIX
TO THE
TORCHMARK CORPORATION
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
Pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Torchmark Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan as established effective January 1, 2007 (the “Plan”), Torchmark Corporation (the “Company”) hereby amends the Plan, effective April 2, 2018, as follows:
1.Section 8.11 of the Plan is replaced in its entirety for claims filed after April 1, 2018 and shall read as follows:


8.11 Claim and Appeal Procedures.  The Committee shall review and decide claims for benefits and appeals thereof in accordance with the procedures set forth in Department of Labor Regulation § 2560.503-1, the provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference.  A claimant shall be required to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by this Section 8.11 prior to seeking any other form of relief.
Done this the 31st day of December, 2018.
TORCHMARK CORPORATION




By:  /s/ Frank M. Svoboda                          
Its:  EVP & CFO
#### Stefen E. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David DUNLAP, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 16-7518

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Stefen E. Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stefen Emira Harris, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional, claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *269materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
14366

#### BROWN *ET AL.*v. LOWE *ET UX.*

(188 S. E., 182)

*15
      *Messrs. R. B. Harrelson*and L. *D. Lide,*for appellants,

*Mr. A. E.*Woods, for respondents,

October 29, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Stabeer.

The Court is satisfied, from a careful study of the questions presented by this appeal, that Judge Dennis correctly construed the written agreement referred to in his order, and that he properly disposed of all issues involved in the case. Eor the reasons, therefore, stated by him in his decree, which will be reported, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Bonham, Baker and Eishburne, and Mr. Acting Associate Justice A. L. Gaston concur.
#### Commonwealth *versus*Dyer Loveridge.

A recognizance taken by a justice of the peace from one charged with homicide is merely void.

This was a *scire facias*brought against the defendant upon a recognizance certified by a justice of the peace for the county of *Franklin*conditioned for the defendant’s personal appearance at some former term of this Court in this county, to answer to such matters and things as should be objected against him on behalf of *308the commonwealth, and especially to the complaint of *J. C.,*of, &c., *for Trilling J. C.,*Sen., late of, &c.

*Ashmun,*for the defendant.

The statute of 1783, c. 51, vesting certain powers in justices of the peace in criminal cases, requires them to commit to prison all persons guilty, or suspected to be guilty, of manslaughter, murder, and other capital offences, and [ * 338 ] to hold to bail those guilty of lesser * offences. The justice in this case, then, was wholly unauthorized to take this recognizance, which is therefore merely void. And *the Court*being of this opinion, the *Solicitor-General*entered a *nolle prosequi*to the *scire facias.*
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-1285 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-073-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Jim Grigg Date

Branch Manager Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,643,013
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,380,496
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               529,619
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  8,672,505
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,409,602
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,405,853
<LOANS>                                    108,299,722
<ALLOWANCE>                                    885,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             129,192,293
<DEPOSITS>                                  65,938,690
<SHORT-TERM>                                12,800,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,752,590
<LONG-TERM>                                 19,900,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,969,135
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,831,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             129,192,293
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,477,683
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              323,325
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               394,594
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,195,602
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,458,944
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,544,381
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,651,221
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  135,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,943,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,767,849
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,767,849
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,086,820
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.96
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   191,055
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               750,417
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      172
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              885,245
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        885,245



</TABLE>
Kelly Sigmon RICE, as Personal Representative, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jerri Lee HOWARD, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4280

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 09, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### A. Edward EZOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eli MORGENSTERN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56720

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 4, 2017

A. Edward Ezor, Pasadena, CA, pro se.

Erika Doherty, Mark Torres-Gil, Suzanne Grandt, State Bar of California Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Sarah Lee Overton, Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho & Associates, P.C., Riverside, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN,- and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

A. Edward Ezor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his California State Bar disbarment proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because Ezor’s action amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior, final state court judgment. *Id.*at 1163; *Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam,*334 F.3d 895, 901-02 (9th Cir. 2003) (constitutional claim against state court judge for bias was “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision, and thus beyond the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction). Contrary to Ezor’s contention, the extrinsic fraud exception to the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine does not apply because the alleged fraud was litigated in the state action. *See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A,*525 F.3d 855, 859-60 (9th Cir. 2008) *(Rooker-Feldman*doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if the alleged fraud has been separately litigated in a state action).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ezor’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Rosenberg. *See United States v. Johnson,*610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for recusal).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised arid argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Daveon Lamarnce CATHEY v. STATE

CR-16-0312

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Exhibit 32.1



TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.



CERTIFICATION



I, Vivek Y. Ranadivé, President and Chief Executive Officer of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: February 9, 2007



/s/ VIVEK Y. RANADIVÉVivek Y. Ranadivé President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
#### Harold Green MCKINNON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Stewart BUTLER; Stacey E. Talley; James Michael Spell; James Bertice Spell; Spell and Son Farms, and/or Spell and Sons Farms, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2398

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

*243Harold Green McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harold Green McKinnon appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion titled “conspiracy to defraud” and dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Ac-cordmgly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McKinnon v. Butler,*No. 5:16-cv-00264-BO (E.D.N.C. June 30, 2016; Nov. 15, 2016). We deny McKinnon’s motions to appoint counsel. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004932
<NAME> ORCA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,695,223
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  750,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,584,902
<PP&E>                                       2,382,910
<DEPRECIATION>                                 492,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,856,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,274,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,946
<OTHER-SE>                                     898,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,856,682
<SALES>                                        651,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               651,842
<CGS>                                          628,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  628,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,550,130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               162,751
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,848,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,848,174)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, the undersigned, Patrick Goepel, Chief Executive Officer of Asure Software, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 1.           The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2010 (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 12, 2010
By:
/s/ PATRICK GOEPELPatrick GoepelChief Executive Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Asure Software, Inc. and will be retained by Asure Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM  THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AS  OF  AND  FOR  THE  YEAR ENDED  MARCH 31, 2000 AND  IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         4,355,738
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,828,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                   84,566
<INVENTORY>                                    4,648,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,190,469
<PP&E>                                         1,542,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,839
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,120,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,845,453
<BONDS>                                        1,819,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,766,341
<COMMON>                                       19,779,542
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,090,485)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,120,351
<SALES>                                        131,861,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,861,292
<CGS>                                          125,770,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,770,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,840,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,045,970
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             950,550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,643,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   56,034
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,587,753)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,587,753)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,587,753)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.12)



</TABLE>
Saraonda BENNETT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3981

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 01, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0806 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-022-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Desmond Terrell KIRKMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-402

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.