alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                            CITIZENS HOLDING COMPANY

                     1999 DIRECTORS' STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

     WHEREAS, Citizens Holding Company (the "Corporation") maintains the
Citizens Holding Company 1999 Directors' Stock Compensation Plan, first
effective as of January 1, 1999 (the "Plan"), which provides for the grant or
award of or investment in $.20 par value voting common stock issued by the
Corporation (the "Common Stock");

     WHEREAS, at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held on
March 26, 2002, in connection with the three-for-two stock split, the Board
authorized the amendment to the Plan to adjust the number of shares of Common
Stock issuable under the Plan and to modify certain terms and conditions of the
grants and awards outstanding under the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, effective as of December 31, 2001, Article
III, Section 3.2 of the Plan shall be amended and restated as follows:

          3.2 Adjustment. In the event of any merger, consolidation or
     reorganization of the Corporation with another entity, there shall be
     substituted for each of the shares of Common Stock then subject to the Plan
     or any Options granted hereunder the number and kind of shares of stock or
     other securities to which the holders of Common Stock are entitled to in
     the transaction.

          In the event of any recapitalization, stock dividend, stock split,
     combination of shares or other change in the number of shares of Common
     Stock then outstanding for which the Corporation does not receive
     consideration, the number of shares of Common Stock then subject to the
     Plan and any Options granted shall be adjusted in proportion to the change
     in outstanding shares of Common Stock. In the event of any such
     substitution or adjustment, the purchase price of any Option and the number
     of shares of Common Stock issuable upon the exercise of any such grant
     shall be adjusted to the extent necessary to prevent the dilution or
     enlargement thereof.

     THIS AMENDMENT was executed in multiple originals, each of which shall be
deemed an original, as of the dates set forth below.

                            CITIZENS HOLDING COMPANY

                            By:   /s/ Robert T. Smith
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                            Its:  Treasurer
                            Date: May 29, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7345

TRYPHON PEACOCK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES THOMPSON, Doctor; TOM BUSH, Doctor;

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, In charge of Central Prison

Medical Department; UNKNOWN SURGEON, at

University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel

Hill, North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-567-5-BO)

Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 5, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tryphon Peacock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tryphon Peacock appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Peacock v. Thompson, No. CA-03-567-5-BO

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2003). We deny Peacock’s motion for an

injunction against administration of medication as it is not

related to the present appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
4828 Loop Central Drive
Houston TX 77081
Telephone  713-966-8966
Fax  713-218-4595
www.littonloan.com


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
C-BASS 2006-CB8 Trust
The undersigned officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP provides the Annual Statement as to Compliance as required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above referenced security and certifies that (i)  a review of the activities of the Servicer during such preceding calendar year (or such shorter period in the case of the first such report) and of performance under this Agreement has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects for 2006, except as disclosed below:
Reconciliations for Asset-Backed Securities Related Bank Account  1122(d)(2)(vii)(D)
Our investor bank account reconciliations included certain reconciling items that were not resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification on eleven of sixty-threeinvestor bank account reconciliations selected for testing.  The sum of the reconciling itemsfor those eleven reconciliations was $216,950.
Adjustments to Interest Rates for Pool Assets With Variable Rates  1122(d)(4)(ix)
Our testing of sixty-five adjustable rate mortgages revealed two instances where certainadjustable rate mortgages for which the interest rate reset in the servicing system did not agree to interest rates in the appropriate source index per the borrower's note documents.These were the result of incorrect information transferring from the prior servicer.Additionally, the same sixty-five mortgages selected for testing included one instance where the adjustable rate mortgage payment change date in the servicing system did not agree to the loan documents.
Date: February 27, 2007
/s/ Elizabeth Folk__________________________________Elizabeth FolkSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 35 a)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Angel MATAMOROS-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41266 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Victor Angel Matamoros-Perez, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Angel Matamoros-Per-ez 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Matamoros-Perez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected *371therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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*5th 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.
#### Satish SHETTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55661

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 24, 2017

Satish Shetty, Pro Se

Marvin B. Adviento, Jonathan M. Zak, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. 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 *

Satish Shetty appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his di*835versity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with local rules. *Ghazali v. Moran,*46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Shetty’s action because Shetty did not file an opposition to defendants’ Fed. R, Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, request an extension of time to do so, or file an amended complaint. *See id.*(discussing factors to guide the court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules); *see also*Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (allowing a party 21 days to amend its pleading after sendee of a motion under Rule 12(b)); C.D. Cal, R. 7-9 (requiring the filing of an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion to dismiss not later than twenty-one days before the scheduled hearing date); C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (providing that the failure to file a required document may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ex4-5b.htm


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 amended Annual Report for Rainchief Energy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned, Brad J. Moynes, President of the Company do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:








	
(1) 

	
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and













	
(2) 

	
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, theFinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.







 


 


May 24, 2012







By:







/s/ Brad J. Moynes


Brad J. Moynes


President
Exhibit 32.2














CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the period ended June 30, 2010 of Dime Community Bancshares, Inc., (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kenneth J. Mahon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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) 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.









August 9, 2010


Date









By:  /s/ KENNETH J. MAHON


Kenneth J. Mahon


First Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Conservator of Property and Assets of Union Indemnity Company in the State of New York, Appellant, *v*Kraus & Silverman, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted November 19, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*787*Clarence E. Mellen*for appellant.

*James J. McLoughlin*and *John J. Kirwan*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs on the authority of *Semanchuck*v. *Fifth Ave. & 37th St. Corp.*(290 N. Y. 412). No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and-Thacher, JJ.
#### Sheila Lynn GIANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16512

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 19, 2017

Sheila Lynn Gianelli, Pro Se

James T. Conley, Attorney, Christian J. Keeney, Michael James Sexton, Esquire, Attorney, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sheila Lynn Gianelli appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo. *Zetwick v. County of Yolo,*850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s sex discrimination claims because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its adverse actions were pretextual. *See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc.,*150 F.3d 1217, 1219-22 (9th Cir. 1998) (providing framework for analyzing discrimination claims under Title VII and .FEHA, setting forth elements of such claims, and noting that circumstantial evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s hostile work environment claims because Gianelli failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged sexual harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. *See Zetwick,*850 F.3d at 442 (elements of a hostile work environment claim under Title VII); *Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods.,*38 Cal.4th 264, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211, 220 (2006) (elements of a hostile work environment claim under FEHA); *see also Ariz. ex rel. Home v. Geo Grp., Inc.,*816 F.3d 1189, 1206 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing examples of conduct that create a triable dispute at summary judgment for hostile work environment claims).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gianelli’s retaliation claims because Gianelli failed to raise *a*genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its adverse actions were pretextual. *See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc.,*274 F.3d 1276, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (providing framework for analyzing retaliation claims under Title VII and FEHA and setting forth elements of such claims).

*539The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gianelli’s motion for reconsideration because Gianelli failed to establish grounds for such relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Rex D. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-10341 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 13, 2017)

*856Albert Henry Mickler, Bryan Keith Mickler, Law Offices of Mickler & Mickler, LLP, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Irma Reboso Solares, Scott E. Byers, Stephanie A. Fichera, Carlton Fields Jor-den Burt, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rex Hill, alleging damages less than $75,000, sued Allianz Life Insurance in state court for defamation. A little more than a year later he moved to amend his complaint to allege damages greater than $75,000. Allianz in turn removed the action to district court based on diversity jurisdiction. Seeking remand, Hill argued to the district court that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not satisfied and that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c) barred removal since he commenced the action in state court more than a year before the removal. The district court rejected both arguments. It concluded that (1) Allianz’s removal documents established that more than $75,000 was in controversy and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)’s one-year period for removal was inapplicable because Hill, in bad faith, concealed information about his alleged damages. The parties then proceeded to discovery, after which the district court entered summary judgment for Allianz. Hill’s defamation claim is time barred, the district court held, and even if the claim is timely, it fails based on the doctrine of invited defamation.

Hill now appeals, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction and that it erred in granting summary judgment. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its orders.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, William J. Loughman, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AirGate PCS, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 15, 2005
/s/ William J. Loughman
William J. LoughmanChief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martez Alando GURLEY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20812 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Martez Alando Gurley, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Martez Aando Gurley 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Gur-ley 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 GRANT*345ED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7009 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7009

 To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to approve as allowable 
costs the expenses of certain security measures in a revenue producing 
 parking lot under section 47119 of title 49, United States Code, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2024

 Ms. Caraveo (for herself and Mr. Buck) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to approve as allowable 
costs the expenses of certain security measures in a revenue producing 
 parking lot under section 47119 of title 49, United States Code, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Airport Facilities for 
Enhanced Parking Act'' or the ``SAFE Parking Act''.

SEC. 2. SECURITY PROJECTS IN REVENUE PRODUCING PARKING LOTS.

    (a) In General.--In making a decision under paragraph (1) of 
section 47119(a) of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary of 
Transportation may approve as allowable costs under such section the 
expenses of security measures in a revenue producing parking lot, 
including--
            (1) CCTV systems;
            (2) physical barriers;
            (3) alarm systems;
            (4) analytical tools to be developed in partnership with 
        law enforcement to identify criminal trends; and
            (5) any other measure the Secretary determines to be 
        appropriate.
    (b) Applicability.--The authority to approve allowable costs for 
security measures under subsection (a) shall terminate on December 31, 
2025.
    (c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2025, the Comptroller 
General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation of the Senate a 
report describing--
            (1) the funds used for security measures in a revenue 
        producing parking lot under section 47119 of title 49, United 
        States Code; and
            (2) recommendations for updating the airport improvement 
        program under subchapter I of chapter 471 of such title.
                                 <all>
```