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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6773 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6773

To designate the Senator Dianne Feinstein Memorial Trail in Headwaters 
                      Forest Reserve, California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

Mr. Thompson of California (for himself and Mr. Huffman) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Senator Dianne Feinstein Memorial Trail in Headwaters 
                      Forest Reserve, California.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Senator Dianne Feinstein Memorial 
Trail Act''.

SEC. 2. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN MEMORIAL TRAIL.

    (a) In General.--The Elk River Trail in Headwaters Forest Reserve, 
California, shall hereafter be known and designated as the ``Senator 
Dianne Feinstein Memorial Trail''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Elk River Trail in 
Headwaters Forest Reserve shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
Senator Dianne Feinstein Memorial Trail.
                                 <all>
```
#### Scott SCHUTZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COURTESY CHEVROLET CENTER, a California Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-55631

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 6, 2017* Pasadena, California

Filed July 10, 2017

*626Russell Clive Handy, Esquire, Mark D. Potter, Esquire, Potter Handy LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Scot Claus, Dickinson Wright/Mariscal Weeks, Phoenix, AZ, Lann G. McIntyre, Esquire, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bis-gaard <& Smith LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Christopher Chen-Hsin Wang, Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America

Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

We vacate th'e district court’s dismissal of this action, and we remand for reconsideration in light of Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley, LLC, No. 15-55633.

VACATED and REMANDED. Costs on appeal awarded to Plaintiff.

BYBEE, Circuit Judge,

acquiescing dubitante:

I acquiesce *dubitante*for the reasons articulated in my separate opinion in *Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley, LLC,*No. 15-55633.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); 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: November 11, 2004
By:
/s/ Allen E. KahnAllen E. KahnChairman and Chief Executive Officer


The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit 32Page 1 of 1
499 A.2d 940

#### K & L MICROWAVE, INC. et al. v. Robert W. BARBELY et al.

No. 47,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 7, 1985.

K. King Burnett (David A. Vorhis, on brief), Salisbury, for appellants.

Philip L. Asplen, Jr., Baltimore, for appellees.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

*404ORDER

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above-entitled case having been granted, 303 Md. 42, 491 A.2d 1197, and heard, it is this 7th day of November, 1985

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed, petition having been improvidently granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0340

STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel.,

TIMOTHY C. FOX,

NOV 2 3 2020

Bowe n Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

Plaintiff and Appellee,

ORDER

v.

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA Inc., and other tobacco

manufacturers, collectively Appellants, appealed the First Judicial District Court's

June 25, 2020 final judgment in Cause No. BDV-1997-306. After a successful appellate

mediation, the parties reached a settlement in principle and now stipulate to the entry of an

order remanding the case to the District Court for the parties to submit the terms of that

settlement for entry of a Consent Decree. Appellants have agreed to the voluntary dismissal

of the remainder of this appeal with prejudice.

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that this rnatter is REMANDED to the First Judicial District Court,

Lewis and Clark County, for entry of a Consent Decree.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to

the Honorable Mike McMahon, presiding District Court Judge.

DATED this aday of November, 2020.

11/23/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0340
2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ERCELY W. COLEMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1790

[November 18, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Mariya Weekes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 90-5417CF10A.

Ercely W. Coleman, Florida City, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tiffany ZERLEY Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3840

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 16, 2017

Filed: June 21, 2017

Kimberly C. Bunjer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Nebraska, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Mary Clare Gryva, Attorney, Mary C. Gryva Law Office, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellant

Tiffany Zerley, Pro Se

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Tiffany Zerley appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to a drug charge. Her counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 *291L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Zerley’s sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We conclude that the District Court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when a district court has varied below the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that the court abused its discretion in not varying further). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Exhibit 13.1



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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of AudioCodes Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shabtai Adlersberg, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ SHABTAI ADLERSBERG

Shabtai Adlersberg

Chief Executive Officer





September 22, 2004







| |  | 
| |  |
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Liberate Technologies (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nancy J. Hilker, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/ NANCY J. HILKERNancy J. Hilker Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 8, 2002 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A0 50 3 . TRI PP v . THE STATE

Ot i s Ro b er t Tri p p J r., ap p eal s fro m hi s co n vi ct io n s fo r m ul t i p l e co u n t s o f

ag g rav at ed ch i l d m ol es t at i o n

, ag g rav at ed sex u al b at t ery

, an d ch il d m o l es t at i o n

. In an

earl ier ap p eal

, t h i s Co u rt rev ers e d t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s g ran t o f Tri p p ’ s m o t io n fo r n ew

t ri al

, an d rem an d ed t h e cas e fo r fu rt h er pro ceed i n g s

. See Tr ip p v. S t a t e

, Ca s e No

.

A1 5 A1 00 3 , d eci d ed No v

. 1 7

, 2 0 1 5

.

On rem an d, t h e t ri al co u rt h el d an o t her h eari n g o n Tri pp ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

,

aft er wh i ch i t d en ied th e m o t i o n. Tri p p t hen fi l ed t h e i n s tan t ap peal an d t h e Cl erk o f

t h e Do u g h ert y Co u n t y Su p eri o r Co u rt t ran s m i t t ed t h e reco rd t o t h i s C o u rt

. Ou r

rev i ew, ho w ev er, s h o ws t h at t h e h eari n g o n th e m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al t hat o ccu rred o n

Ap ri l 26

, 2 0 1 6

, h as n o t b een i ncl u d ed in t h e reco rd o n ap p eal

. In h i s n ot i ce o f ap p eal

,

Tri p p d es i g n at ed t h e t ran s cri pt t o b e i n cl u d ed i n t he reco rd tran s m i t t ed t o t h i s Co u rt

.

As th e t ran scri p t o f t h e m o t i o n f o r n ew tri al h eari n g i s n eces s ary fo r a

d et erm i n at i o n o f wh et h er th e t ri al co u rt p ro p erl y d en ied t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, we

m u st rem an d t h i s ap p eal t o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r co m p l et i o n o f t h e reco rd

. Acco rd i n g l y

,

t h i s cas e i s REM A

NDED t o t h e Cl erk of t h e Do u g h ert y Co u n t y Su p eri o r Co u r t t o

co m p i le t h e t ran s cri pt of t h e h eari n g d at ed Ap ri l 2 6

, 20 1 6 an d tran s m it i t t o t h i s Co u rt

wi t h i n 1 5 d ay s o f recei p t. T h e Cl erk o f t h i s Co u rt is d i rect ed to red o ck et t hi s ap p eal

u p o n recei p t o f t h e co m

pl et e t ran s cri p t

. April 20, 2018C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/20/2018
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7**  **171**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CHAD ALLEN REEVES, a/k/a Chad Reeves , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the We stern District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. James C. Turk , Senior District Judge. ( 7:06

- cr - 00009

- JCT ; 7:07

- cv - 80011

- JCT

- MFU )

Submitted : November 2 , 2012 Decided: November 6 , 2012

Before WILKINSON , KEENAN , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Chad Allen Reeves , Appellant Pro Se
. Ronald Andrew Bassford , Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke , Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chad Allen Reeves seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 201 2 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. 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 deb atable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling i s debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reeves has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
General Term—Third Department.

Filed May 21, 1891.

#### In the Matter of the Petition of George Christie for Appointment of Trustee, etc.

Motion to cancel order denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04395]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than March 16, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Karen Smith, Director, 
Applications) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. The MES 2022 Trust and Marvin Edward Singleton, IV, 
individually, and as trustee, both of Waxahachie, Texas; to join the 
Marvin Edward Singleton, III Family Control Group, a group acting in 
concert, to acquire voting shares of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., 
and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Citizens National Bank 
of Texas, both of Waxahachie, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 25, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-04395 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Jose Enrique RIOS-RUIZ, AKA Jose Enrique Ries Rios, AKA Jose Enrique Rios Rios, AKA Jose Enique Rios-Ruiz, AKA Jose Enrique Riosruiz, AKA Jose Enrique Rioz-Rios, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73580

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 7, 2017

Lesley Irizarry-Hougan, Attorney, L.I.H. Law, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Claire Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of *622Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland" Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Enrique Rios-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. *Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,*770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rios-Ruiz failed to establish it is more likely than not he was or would be recruited by gang members based on a direct or imputed political opinion. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (applicant must provide some evidence of motive, direct or circumstantial). We reject his contention that the BIA ignored evidence. Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Rios-Ruiz’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We reject his contention that the BIA did not fully consider his claim. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ■ cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 4.12
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
     1. Amendment
  2. Miscellaneous.
 (a)
    
    Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law
of the State of New York, USA.
 (b)
    
    Effect of Amendment. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains
in full force and effect according to its terms. Except as specifically provided in this
Amendment, nothing contained in this Amendment is intended to affect the parties existing or
continuing rights or obligations under the Agreement, as modified hereby.
 (c)
    
    Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed
an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
 [signature page follows]




---



##### 



MAY YIHONG WU/s/ May Yihong WuHOME INNS & HOTELS MANAGEMENT INC.By:
    /s/ Jian SunName:
    Jian SunTitle:
    CEO  2
MKL 05.15.2012 EX 10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1


MARKEL CORPORATION


RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT


FOR OUTSIDE DIRECTORS




To:    _______________________


MARKEL CORPORATION (the "Company") hereby grants you (the “Director”) ____ shares of Restricted Stock (the “Shares”) under the Markel Corporation 2012 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).  Shares that have not yet vested under Section 1 below, or as otherwise specifically provided herein, are forfeitable and nontransferable. The Company's  Outside Directors will administer this Award Agreement, and any decision of the Outside Directors will be final and conclusive.  Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings provided in the Plan.


The terms of your Award are:


		
	1.
	Vesting of Shares.  Except as otherwise provided in this Award Agreement, the Shares will become vested and nonforfeitable one year from the date hereof (the “Vesting Date”), provided that the Director remains a member of the Board of Directors until the earlier of the Vesting Date or the Company's next annual meeting of shareholders after the date hereof.




		
	2.
	Forfeiture of Shares.  If the Director ceases to be a member of the Board of Directors other than by reason of death or Disability (as defined below) before the Vesting Date, the Shares will be forfeited; provided, that the Outside Directors may determine in their sole discretion that forfeiture should not occur, in whole or in part, because the Director had an approved termination of his or her service as a  member of the Board of Directors and may in such circumstances allow the Shares to vest, in whole or in part, on such terms as the Outside Directors deem appropriate.  If the Director dies or incurs a Disability, the Shares will become fully vested and non-forfeitable on the date of the Director's death or Disability.  




		
	3.
	Change of Control.  Any unvested Shares will become fully vested and non-forfeitable if, after a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan) and before the Vesting Date, the Director ceases to be a member of the Board of Directors for any reason other than voluntary resignation.  




		
	4.
	Transfer Restrictions.  The Shares are not subject to sale, assignment, transfer, pledge, hypothecation or encumbrance.




		
	5.
	Binding Effect.  Subject to the limitations stated above, this Award Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Director's legatees, distributees, and personal representatives and the successors of the Company.




		
	6.
	Interpretation.  This Award Agreement will be construed under and be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA OR THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ANY DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE PLAN OR THIS AWARD AGREEMENT.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Restricted Stock Award Agreement to be signed, effective as of the award date shown below.


	
					
	 
	 
	 
	MARKEL CORPORATION
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	____________, 201_
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Authorized Officer