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



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Reserved]c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ John M. HughesName: John M. HughesTitle: Chief Financial Officer
Third Amendment to the Suplemental 401(k) Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10.65 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE 
 PATRIOT COAL CORPORATION 

SUPPLEMENTAL 401(k) RETIREMENT PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Patriot Coal Corporation (“Company”) previously adopted the Patriot Coal Corporation Supplemental 401(k) Retirement Plan (“Plan”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan, by a resolution adopted by action of the Board of Directors of the Company,
pursuant to Section 12.1 thereof; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is necessary and desirable to amend
the Plan to suspend matching credits thereunder; and 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective as July 1, 2009, the Company amends the
Plan by adding the following sentence at the end of Section 4.2: 
 Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary,
matching credits shall be suspended effective for pay dates on or after July 1, 2009, and no such amounts shall be credited by the Employer with respect to deferrals by Participants attributable to Compensation payable on or after such date.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment is hereby executed as of this 15th day of June, 2009. 

 

			
	PATRIOT COAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Joseph W. Bean

		 	Joseph W. Bean
		 	Senior Vice President – Law & Administration
No. 09-8862.

#### In re Thomas Joseph Cutaia, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 1036, 130 S. Ct. 2070,

176 L. Ed. 2d 413,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2918.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
PCT INTERNATIONAL IN CORPORATED, Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

HOLLAND ELECTRONICS, LLC, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________

2016

- 1061

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in No. 2:12

- cv

- 01797

- JAT, Senior Judge James A. Teilborg.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C HRISTOPHER K. L ARUS , Robins Kaplan LLP, Minn eapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff

- appellee. Also represented by E RIC J OHN M AGNUSON , J AMIE R. K URTZ , J OHN K. H ARTING , B RYAN M ECHELL

.

S ID L EACH , Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Phoenix, AZ , argued for defendant

- appellant.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , M OORE , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 16, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
#### Williamsport National Bank v. Allen

*Christine Fuhrman,*for plaintiff.

*Joseph DeChristopher,*for defendants.

April 13, 1989

RAUP, *P.J.,*

—

At issue before the court are the claims for exemption filed by each of the two defendants. Defendants are husband and wife. The execution proceeding involves an effort by the Williamsport National Bank to recover a deficiency which has resulted after the repossession of a vehicle. Both husband and wife are debtors and each has filed a-claim for a $300 exemption, the wife, Maxine E. Allen claiming a 1969 Chevrolet pickup and a Panasonic portable TV (the Chevrolet pickup being apparently registered in her name) and the husband claiming a stove, refrigerator, C.B. radio, table and chairs and VCR. The bank has not raised an issue as to whether the value of the claimed exemptions exceeds $300, but rather raises the single issue as to whether husband and wife are entitled to a single $300 exemption, or whether each is entitled to a $300 exemption.

The Judicial Code, Act of July 9,1976, P.L. 586, §2 as amended, December 20, 1982, P.L. 1409, Art. II, §201; 42 Pa.C.S. §8123 provides in pertinent part:

“In addition to any other properties specifically exempted by this subchapter, property of the judgment debtor to the value of $300 shall be exempt from attachment or’execution on a judgment.”

*436The Williamsport National Bank relies upon the York County Common Pleas decision in *Waltz v. Zimmerman,*38 D.&C. 3d 211 (1985). In that decision, the court held that property held by the defendants as tenants by the entirety was not subject to separate claims for exemption and the court allowed a single joint exemption of $300 against their joint properties.

In this case, there is an allegation that the 1969 Chevrolet pickup was owned separately by the wife. In any event, however, we are not persuaded by the logic of the York County decision. Just as the creditor bank would be able to proceed against the individual property of either husband or wife, so we feel that either husband or wife is a “debtor” within the meaning of the above-quoted section. Each should be entitled to the full $300 exemption. Accordingly, the following order is entered.

ORDER

And now, April 13, 1989, for the reasons stated above, it is ordered and directed that the William-sport National Bank’s objection to the separate claims of exemption is denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00247 - CR

JEFFERY LEE MANNS APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 396TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1213 452D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPI NION 1

---------- Appellant Jeffery Lee Manns attempts to appeal from the denial of his motion for DNA testing

. The trial court entered its order denying the motion on March 13, 2015. Appellant’s notice of appeal was therefore due on April 13,
2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant mailed his notice of appeal on or about July 2, 2015, which was received by the trial court on July 15, 2015

.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 On July 24, 2015, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal. We s tated that unless any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Appellant and his counsel filed responses, but they do not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant states that he did not receive notice of the trial court’s order until June 9, 2015 , and that he filed his notice of appeal within thirty days of that notice. The rules of appellate procedure set out rules that must b e followed to invoke this court’ s jurisdiction over an appeal. White v. State , 61 S.W.3d 424,
428

– 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). If the jurisdiction of a court of appeals is not properly invoked, the power of the appellate court to act is a s absent as if it did not exist. Id. Appellate jurisdiction is invoked by giving timely and proper notice of appeal. Id. Although Appellant may not have received timely notice of the trial court’s order, we cannot suspend the rules of appellate procedu re to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) . Because Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. Absent appellate jurisd iction, we can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See id. ; see also Bevers v. State , No. 0 2

- 04

- 00 464

- CR, 2004 WL 2568099, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Nov. 12, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing untimely app eal and noting that a writ of3 habeas corpus from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the appropriate means of seeking an out

- of

- time appeal ). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

/s/ Lee Gabriel LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J .; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 8, 2015
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





The
undersigned, Richard Kern, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and
Treasurer of American Goldfields Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the
standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended October 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and  results  of operations of the Company.








Date:
      December 1, 2008
              
              
              /s/
      Richard Kern
              Richard
      Kern
              President,
      Chief Executive Officer,
              Secretary,
      and Treasurer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer,
              Principal
      Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting
  Officer)








This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
---

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

I, Douglas D.G. Birnie, the Chief Executive Officer of Ireland
Inc. (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, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                            

| | By:    | /s/ Douglas D.G. Birnie
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | DOUGLAS D.G. BIRNIE    
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | November 22, 2010      

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
No. 09-8422.

#### Jimmy Dean Meinhard, Petitioner v. Steven Turley, Warden.

559 U.S. 1010, 130 S. Ct. 1885,

176 L. Ed. 2d 370,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2692.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Utah denied.
# C_2017343EN.01000201.xml

| 13.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8528 — SEGRO/PSPIB/SELP/Morgane Portfolio)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 343/03)

On 25 July 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8528. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8528. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Prudential Financial, Inc. Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary



 EXHIBIT 10.29 
 Prudential Financial, Inc. 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary

 (As adopted on November 9, 2010) 
 Upon becoming a director, each non-employee director (a “Director”) receives a one-time grant of $120,000 in Prudential Financial restricted stock units that vest after one year and are deferred
until retirement from the Board under the Prudential Financial, Inc. 2011 Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. 
 Each
Director receives an annual retainer of $240,000 of which (i) 50% is payable in cash that may be deferred at the Director’s option and (ii) 50% is paid in the form of restricted stock units that vest after one year. If the Director
satisfies the Director Stock Ownership Guidelines, the restricted stock units are payable in stock or cash (at the Director’s option) at vesting and may be deferred beyond vesting at the Director’s option. If the Director does not satisfy
the Director Stock Ownership Guidelines, the restricted stock units are automatically deferred until retirement from the Board under the Prudential Financial, Inc. 2011 Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. 

The Chairperson of the Audit Committee receives an additional $25,000 retainer payable in cash that may be deferred at the Director’s option.

 The Chairperson of the Compensation Committee receives an additional $20,000 retainer payable in cash that may be deferred at the
Director’s option. 
 All Committee Chairpersons other than the Chairpersons of the Audit Committee and Compensation Committee receive an
additional $15,000 retainer payable in cash that may be deferred at the Director’s option. 
 The Lead or Presiding Director receives an
additional $50,000 retainer payable in cash that may be deferred at the Director’s option. 
 There are no other retainer fees for
Committee membership or meeting fees, other than fees for attending meetings of the Community Resources Committee (which generally meets on a day separate from Board meetings). Members of this committee receive $1,250 per meeting. 

Note: For purposes of this policy, “retirement” means the Director’s termination of service on the Board for any reason
regardless of the Director’s age at the time of retirement.
Order entered August 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00945-CV

IN RE SONJA Y. WEBSTER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-10-865-2

ORDER

Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck

Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We DENY the petition. We 

ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

ERRATA

TITLES 13 and 17. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

By notice dated August 28, 2007, and published in t he September 7, 2007, California Regulatory Notice Register, Register 2007, No. 36-Z , the Air Resources Board (the “Board” or “ARB”) provided Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Proposed Regulations to Reduce Emissions from Diese l Engines on Commercial Harbor Craft Operated within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California

Baseline.

PLEASE BE ADVISED there was an error in the notice regarding the ARB Internet Site for this rulemaking. The following ARB Internet sit e appears in paragraph 5 on page 13

of the notice:

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/chc07/chc07

This ARB Internet Site was corrected to read as fol lows:

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/chc07/chc07.htm

The complete text of the notice and the Initial Sta tement of Reasons are available on the ARB Internet site for this rulemaking at www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/chc07/chc07.htm

.

Any questions regarding these corrections should be directed to Alexa Malik, Manager, Board Administration & Regulatory Coordination Unit at (916) 322-4011 or Amy Whiting, Regulations Coordinator at (916) 322-6533.

If you have a disability-related accommodation need , please go to http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/ada/ada.htm for assistance or contact the ADA Coordinator at (916) 323-4916. If you are a person who needs assi stance in a language other than English, please contact the Bilingual Coordinator a t (916) 324-5049. TTY/TDD/Speech-toSpeech users may dial 7-1-1 for the California Rela y Service.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

/s/

Tom Cackette Acting Executive Officer Date: September 7, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6293

DENIS RIVERA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARKE; DAVID 

ROBINSON; G. K. WASHINGTON; RANDALL MATHENA; GREGORY 

HOLLOWAY; SCOTT RICHESON; MALCOLM TAYLOR; KEITH DAWKINS; 

DR. BRANE; JIM PARKS; HENRY PONTON; EARL BARKSDALE; GEORGE 

HINKLE; ELIZABETH THORNTON; J. WALRATH; I. HAMILTON; T. 

PURYEAR; J. ARTRIP; A. GALLIHAR; G. BAKER; MICHAEL YOUNCE; 

WALTER SWINEY; TORI RAIFORD; DWAYNE TURNER; STACY DAY; 

CHRISTOPHER GILBERT; JOE FANNIN; TONY ADAMS; G. A. ADAMS; K. 

A. SYKES; R. KEGLEY; B. E. STALLARD; JACKSON; J. KING, former 

counselor at Red Onion State Prison; A. B. DUNCAN, Unit Manager,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

EXTERNAL REVIEW TEAM; DUAL TREATMENT TEAM; UNIT MANAGER 

TEAM,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:15-cv-00156-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: March 1, 2018
2

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denis Rivera, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, 

Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Denis Rivera appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny Rivera’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Rivera v. Va. Dep’t. of Corr., No. 7:15-cv-00156-JPJ-RSB (W.D. Va. 

Dec. 8, 2016 & Feb. 3, 2017). 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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.8a



                                  AMENDMENT
                                      TO
                             ORYX ENERGY COMPANY
                        1992 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


Pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1 of the Oryx Energy Company 1992
Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended through December 2, 1993 and restated (the
"Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of September 4, 1996, as
follows:

1.     Restate the first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Plan in its entirety to
       read as follows:

       This Plan shall be administered by the Committee, which shall consist of
       three or more directors of the Company, all of whom are "Non-Employee
       Directors," as such term is defined under the rules and regulations
       adopted, from time to time, by the Securities and Exchange Commission
       pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act, including specifically
       but without limitation, Rule 16b-3 or any successor rule thereto.


                                      ORYX ENERGY COMPANY
                                         
                                      By:  /s/ FRANCES G. HEARTWELL
                                          ------------------------------------
                                      Name:    Frances G. Heartwell
                                            ----------------------------------
                                      Title:   Vice President, Human Resources
                                            ----------------------------------
                                               and Administration
                                                                                
                                                               


Dated as of September 4, 1996.