alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-1023



		

			 

		


		

			EXHIBIT 10.23

		


		

			 

		




		
			DRESSER-RAND GROUP INC.
		

		
			GRANT NOTICE FOR 2008 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS
		

		
			FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Dresser-Rand Group Inc. (the "Company"), hereby grants to Participant named below the Stock Appreciation Rights with respect to the number of shares of its common stock (the "Shares"), that are covered by the Stock Appreciation Rights, as specified below, at the Exercise Price per share specified below and upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Grant Notice, the Dresser-Rand Group Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") and the Standard Terms and Conditions (the "Standard Terms and Conditions") promulgated under such Plan, each as amended from time to time.    Participant must formally accept the grant of Stock Appreciation Rights within 90 days following the Grant Date specified by this Grant Notice; if the Participant fails to do so, the Stock Appreciation Rights will be forfeited and the Participant will have no further rights with respect to such Stock Appreciation Rights.    These Stock Appreciation Rights are granted pursuant to the Plan and are  subject to and qualified in their entirety by the Standard Terms and Conditions.  The Standard Terms and Conditions may be accessed through Participant’s personal Morgan Stanley Smith-Barney Benefit Access®   (www.benefitaccess.com)  account in the Plan Documents section.
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Name of Participant:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Grant Date:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Number of Shares of Common Stock covered by Stock Appreciation Right:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Exercise Price Per Share:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Expiration Date:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Vesting Schedule:

					
					
						 

				



		
			 
		

		
			By accepting this Grant Notice, Participant acknowledges that he or she has received and read, and agrees that these Stock Appreciation Rights shall be subject to, the terms of this Grant Notice, the Plan and the Standard Terms and Conditions.
		

		
			 
		

		
			DRESSER-RAND GROUP INC.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By: /s/ VINCENT R. VOLPE JR.
		

		
			Name: Vincent R. Volpe Jr.
		

		
			Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201500247

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

Nathaniel RODRIGUEZ

Aviation Electronics Technician 

First Class Petty Officer (AT1), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander William L. Geraty,

JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 2 October 2018

_________________________

Before HUTCHISON, WOODARD, and RUSSELL,

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 

§ 866(c). 

FOR THE COURT

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 69

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the establishment of

waivers in State medical-licensing laws regarding the provision of health

care to indigent individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 30, 1997

Mr. DUNCAN (for himself, Mr. BRYANT, Mr. WAMP, Mr. HILLEARY, and Mr.

TANNER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the

establishment of waivers in State medical-licensing laws

regarding the provision of health care to indigent individuals.

Whereas a number of volunteer organizations operate programs to provide health care to indigent individuals without imposing any charges on the individuals;

Whereas the physicians who participate in such programs

perform an important service by providing health care to

a segment of the population that otherwise might not receive such care;

Whereas a physician who is willing to participate in such a

program, although licensed by one or more States, may
2

•HCON 69 IH

be prohibited from participating in the program by reason of not being licensed in the State in which the program needs the physician to provide services;

Whereas, in most States, the laws regulating the practice of

medicine do not provide for the granting, to a physician

who is not licensed in the State, of a waiver that authorizes the physician to provide health care to indigent individuals in the State; and

Whereas the State of Tennessee has enacted legislation that

provides for such waivers: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that each

3 State should enact legislation that provides for the grant4 ing, to a physician who is not licensed to practice medicine

5 in the State, of a waiver from the applicable licensing laws

6 of the State in order to authorize the physician to provide

7 health care to indigent individuals in the State, subject

8 to the physician not imposing any charge for such care.

Æ
#### Idrissa ADAMOU, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Detective Edward J. DOYLE, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant.1

No. 17-255

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 2, 2018

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Richard L. Giampa, Zachary Giampa, Richard L. Giampa, Esq. P.C., Bronx, NY, on the brief.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: MARK A. RADI, Sokoloff Stern LLP, Carle Place, NY.

PRESENT: Rosemary S. Pooler, Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall, Circuit Judges.

1

. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption to conform to the above,

*746SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Detective Edward J. Doyle appeals from a January 12, 2017 Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, /.), clarifying an Order of March 14, 2016, that denied Detective Doyle’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis of absolute and qualified immunity. Detective Doyle also appeals from a March 9,2017 Order of the same court, denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We note at the outset that we do not possess jurisdiction to review the district court’s January 12, 2017 Order. That Order merely clarified the court’s March 14, 2016 Order denying Detective Doyle’s motion to dismiss and did not “alter the substantive rights affected by the first judgment.” *In re Am. Safety Indem. Co.,*502 F.3d 70, 72 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting *Farkas v. Rumore,*101 F.3d 20, 23 (2d Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, the 30-day deadline to file an appeal from the district court’s denial of Detective Doyle’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss ran from March 14,2016 — the date of the first judgment on the motion. Detective Doyle’s appeal of the January 12, 2017 Order is therefore untimely. We do have jurisdiction, however, over Detective Doyle’s timely appeal from the March' 9, 2017 Order denying his 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.

We review the denial of absolute or qualified immunity *de novo. See Giraldo v. Kessler,*694 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir. 2012) (absolute immunity); *Benzman v. Whitman,*523 F.3d 119, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (qualified immunity). Under *Rehberg v. Paulk,*566 U.S. 356, 369, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (2012), a grand jury witness, including a law enforcement officer, “has absolute immunity from any § 1983 claim based on the witness’ testimony,” even if that testimony is perjurious. Detective Doyle is entitled to absolute immunity in this case because plaintiffs claims are “’based on’ ” his allegedly false grand jury testimony, “as that term is used in *Reh-berg.” Coggins v. Buonora,*776 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting *Rehberg,*566 U.S. at 369, 132 S.Ct. 1497).

Accordingly, the March 9, 2017 Order of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with instructions to grant Detective Doyle’s motion to dismiss.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00197

- CR

E RIC R OMO

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On A ppeal from Criminal District

Court No. 4

of Tarrant County ( 1154083 )

March 14, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice

Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial c ourt’s judgment. The judgment is modified to delete

reparat ions in the amount of $2,395 . It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court

is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Just ice Bonnie Sudderth
No. 11-1480.

#### Muhammad *v.*Shaw.

Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lamont REAMS, a/k/a Hot, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7535

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

Kenneth Lamont Reams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lamont Reams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 motion 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 Reams 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>


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





                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
                     September 13, 2002 (September 13, 2002)

                            STERLING BANCSHARES, INC.
              Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter


        Texas                         0-20750                74-2175590
State of Incorporation or      Commission File Number       I.R.S. Employer
     Organization                                           Identification No.



  2550 North Loop West, Suite 600
        Houston, Texas                                          77092
Address of Principal Executive Offices                        (Zip Code)

                                 (713) 466-8300
                         Registrant's telephone number,
                               including area code

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

<PAGE>



Item 5. Other Information

     On September 13, 2002, Sterling Bancshares, Inc. ("Sterling Bancshares")
announced that it had completed the acquisition of ENB Bankshares, Inc. and its
subsidiary bank, Eagle National Bank (collectively, "ENB"). A copy of Sterling
Bancshares' press release announcing the acquisition of ENB is filed as Exhibit
99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K. The press release is incorporated
herein by reference and the foregoing description of the press release is
qualified in its entirety by reference to Exhibit 99.1.

Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits

(a)  None.

(b)  None

(c)  Exhibits. The following materials are filed as exhibits to this Current
Report on Form 8-K:

     Exhibit 99.1 Press release dated September 13, 2002


                                       2

<PAGE>



                                   SIGNATURE

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                           STERLING BANCSHARES, INC.



Dated: September 13, 2002                  By: /s/  Eugene S. Putnam, Jr.
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Eugene S. Putnam, Jr.
                                              Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer



                                       3
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 of SEA 2 SKY CORPORATION on Form 10-K for the
period ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, C. Victor Hall, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (c)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (d)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Date:
November 22, 2010
 
 By: /s/ C. Victor Hall
 C. Victor
Hall
 Chief
Executive Officer & Principal Executive Officer




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 of SEA 2 SKY CORPORATION on Form 10-K for the
period ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Erik Odeen, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(c)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date:
November 22, 2010





By: 
/s/ Erik Odeen


Erik
Odeen


Chief
Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 28

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms in defense of life or liberty and in the

pursuit of all other legitimate endeavors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 1997

Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. WICKER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the

right of all Americans to keep and bear arms in defense

of life or liberty and in the pursuit of all other legitimate

endeavors.

Whereas the second amendment to the Constitution of the

United States conveys an inalienable right to all American citizens, such right occupying the same preferred position as all other constitutional rights;

Whereas unconscionable abridgements of the second amendment have been undertaken over the years by State and

local governmental bodies, and have been allowed by the

courts to stand uncorrected; and
2

•HCON 28 IH

Whereas the Framers of the second amendment to the Constitution and those who ratified the second amendment

intended that the individual retain the right to keep and

bear arms in order to protect life, liberty, and property

and to protect our Nation from those who would attempt

to destroy our freedom: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Constitution provides that all individual citizens have the

4 right to keep and bear arms, which right supersedes the

5 power and authority of any government.

Æ
(logo)Prudential

 

 

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PGIMReal Estate Finance

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:         **WFCM 2014-LC18**

Period: **January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019(the “Reporting Period”)**

 

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

 

I,Joni Brown-Haas, in my capacity as President and Managing Director ofPrudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify with regard tothe Company’s role as Sub-Servicer under the Sub-Servicing Agreement, (the“Agreement”) dated as of December 1, 2014, pertaining to the above-referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)      areview of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe relevant period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)    to thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement throughout the relevant period, and

 

(iii)   to the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligationsunder its sub-servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)    the Company hasmaintained an effective internal control system over the servicing of mortgageloans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)    theCompany has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challenging thestatus of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from the IRSor any other governmental agency or body.

 

 

Effectiveas of February 21, 2020

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown-Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1030

ANTHONY G. BRYANT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

U.S. SECRET SERVICE; U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; SOUTH CAROLINA 

INSURANCE COMMISSION; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR 

VEHICLES,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-03580-MBS-MGB)

 

Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 22, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony G. Bryant filed this notice of appeal shortly after bringing a new action in 

the district court; the court has not yet taken any action on Bryant’s complaint. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2018), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The district court 

has not issued a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 4.1



 


INCEPTION MINING INC.


5320 South 900 East, Suite 260


Murray, Utah 84107


 


November
1, 2013


 


U.P. and Burlington Development, LLC


10318 Oak Creek Lane


Highland, Utah 84003


 


Attention: Matt Anderson


 


	 	Re: 	Promissory Note (the “Note”) dated January 17, 2013 in the amount of $800,000 (the “Principal”) between Inception Resources, LLC (“Maker”) and U.P. and Burlington Development, LLC (“Holder”) as assumed by Inception Mining Inc. (“Inception”)


 


Dear Mr. Anderson:


 


Reference is hereby
made to the Note as assumed by Inception. The Note is hereby amended (the “Amendment”) to include the following information
above the final paragraph of the Note.


 


It is hereby acknowledged
by Inception and Holder that as of February 11, 2013, Inception has paid to Holder $170,000 in Principal and that the remaining
principal is $630,000 (the “Remaining Amount”).


 


It is hereby agreed
to by Inception and Holder that the that at any time prior to or at the time of repayment of the Note by Inception, with respect
to the Remaining Amount, the Holder may elect to convert some or all of the principal owing on the Note into shares of common stock
of Inception, at a price of $0.45 per share (the “Conversion Rate”). Such election to convert shall be evidenced by
completion of the conversion notice attached hereto and delivery of such notice to Inception.


 


We kindly request
that you execute this letter below indicating that you agree with the above Amendment.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 	 
	 	Inception Mining Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Michael     Ahlin
	 	Name:	Michael Ahlin
	 	Title:	CEO 


 


AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:


 


U.P. and Burlington Development,
LLC


 


	By:	/s/
    Thomas     Matt Anderson	 
	Name:	Thomas Matt Anderson	 
	Title:	President	 


 




    	 



    	 



    


 


ADDENDUM


 


NOTICE
OF CONVERSION


 


(To be executed by the Registered Holder
in order to convert the Note)


 


The undersigned hereby elects to convert $_________ of
the principal and $_________ of the interest due on the Note issued by Inception Mining Inc. into Shares of Common Stock according
to the conditions set forth in such Note, as of the date written below.


 


Date of Conversion:____________________________________________________________________


 


Conversion Rate: Not to be less than
$.45 per share per stated formula:


 


Shares To Be Delivered:_________________________________________________________________


 


Signature:______________________________________________________________________


 


Print Name:__________________________________________________________________________


 


Address:______________________________________________________________________


 


____________________________________________________________________________