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



Exhibit 10.3





AMENDMENT TO
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS
[A. McBryde]


This Amendment to Stock Option Agreements (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of October 3, 2016, by and between CommunityOne Bancorp, a North Carolina corporation (the “Company) and Angus M. McBryde, III (the “Participant”).


WHEREAS,  the Company and the Participant are parties to a Stock Option Agreement dated October 1, 2014 and a Stock Option Agreement dated July 31, 2015 (the “October 11, 2014 Option Agreement” and the “July 31, 2015 Option Agreement”, respectively); 


WHEREAS, the Company is party to an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between Capital Bank Financial Corp. and the Company, dated as of November 22, 2015 (the “Merger Agreement”);
WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant desire to amend the October 1, 2014 Option Agreement and the July 31, 2015 Option Agreement to provide that to the extent that the Options (as defined under such agreements) covered by such agreements are unvested as of immediately prior to the Effective Time, the term of such unvested Options shall expire and terminate immediately prior to the Effective Time (to the extent not previously forfeited);
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which the parties acknowledge, the Company and the Participant agree as follows:
1.  Each of the October 1, 2014 Option Agreement and the July 31, 2015 Option Agreement is hereby amended to add the following at the end of Section 1(d):
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, to the extent that any of the Options are unvested as of immediately prior to the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement), the term of such Options shall expire and terminate immediately prior to the Effective Time (to the extent such Options are not  previously forfeited).  “Merger Agreement” means the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between Capital Bank Financial Corp. and the Company, dated as of November 22, 2015.
2.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.




COMMUNITYONE BANCORP    PARTICIPANT: 


By:  __/s/ Robert L. Reid______    ___/s/ Angus M. McBryde, III__


Title: _President & CEO______    Date: __10/3/2016___________


Date: _10/3/2016___________






1
Willie SOL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1312

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 9, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Conner, J.

Willie Sol appeals his sentence after entering an open plea to burglary of a structure, grand theft, and possession of burglary tools. Sol asserts four issues of trial court error, one of which the State concedes. Because three of the issues raised by Sol are without merit, we affirm the trial court's ruling as to those issues without discussion. As to the fourth issue, we agree with Sol and the State that we should remand for correction of Sol's sentence on the burglary charge.

The trial court sentenced Sol as a habitual felony offender on the burglary count, but did "not believe that it is necessary for the protection of the public to sentence [Sol] to an enhanced sentence." However, the written sentencing order for the burglary count stated that:

> The Defendant is adjudicated a habitual felony offender and has been sentenced *to an extended term* in accordance with the provisions of section 775.084(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The requisite findings by the Court are set forth in a separate order or stated on the record in Open Court.

(emphasis added).

Section 775.084, Florida Statutes, states that a "habitual felony offender" is "a defendant for whom the court *may* impose an extended term of imprisonment." § 775.084(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added). Section 775.084 also states that the trial "court *must* sentence the defendant as a habitual felony offender ... *unless* the court finds that such sentence is not necessary for the *protection of the public* ." § 775.084(3)(a) 6., Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphases added).

"Any difference between the trial court's oral pronouncement and its written order is resolved in favor of the oral pronouncement." *Harder v. State* , 14 So.3d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Therefore, as the State agrees, the case is remanded for the trial court to correct the error in the written sentence and delete the language for an enhanced sentence as a habitual felony offender. We agree with the State that Sol's presence is not necessary to correct this scrivener's error. *See**Frost v. State* , 769 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ("Accordingly, this case is remanded with instructions for the written sentence to be conformed to the oral pronouncement. Upon remand, appellant need not be present for the correction of the sentence since correction is merely a ministerial act.").

*751*Affirmed and remanded with instructions.*

Taylor and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Yohaniz Ceballos PALOMINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-197

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 8, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Logan T. Mohs, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

**CONFESSION OF ERROR**

Kuntz, J.

The Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and two counts of violation of a domestic violence injunction following a nine-day trial. The Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences, and a record on appeal was transmitted to this Court. But the transcript for one of the days of trial was missing from the record.

Within the record was an affidavit from the court reporter. The affidavit stated that the court reporter's electronic files and backup files for the day in question were empty. Based on the affidavit, the Defendant moved to relinquish jurisdiction to reconstruct the record for the missing day.

On relinquishment, the Defendant and the State agreed that the "missing transcript was necessary for full [appellate] review of the case." They also agreed that the "Defendant's convictions and sentences should be reversed, and that this case should be remanded for a new trial." The circuit court entered an order on relinquishment, confirming the transcript is unavailable and cannot be reconstructed and that the "absence of the transcript prejudices the Defendant in his appeal."

Consistent with the order on relinquishment, the State filed a confession of error, acknowledging that a "defendant is entitled to a full transcript containing appealable issues." We agree. *See**Robinson v. State* , 262 So.3d 826, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing *Hardy v. United States* , 375 U.S. 277, 279, 84 S.Ct. 424, 11 L.Ed.2d 331 (1964) ; *Ader v. State* , 814 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ; *Smith v. State* , 801 So.2d 198, 199-200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ).

The Defendant's convictions and sentences are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on one count of aggravated battery (deadly weapon) and two counts of violation of a domestic violence injunction.

*Reversed and remanded* .

Ciklin and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Wade Leslie BARRESSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Presidential Documents

3599 

Federal Register 

Vol. 90, No. 8 

Tuesday, January 14, 2025 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of January 8, 2025 

Delegation of Certain Authorities Under Section 7271 of Title 

10, United States Code 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense [and] the Secretary of the 

Army 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of the Army the 

authority vested in the President by section 7271 of title 10, United States 

Code, to present certain previously awarded Medals of Honor. This delegated 

authority is limited to the Medals of Honor approved in 1906 for Private 

William Simon Harris, United States Army, and Private James W. McIntyre, 

United States Army, which shall be presented, as an administrative corrective 

action, to the eldest surviving grandchild of each awardee. 

For each such case, the Secretary of the Army shall notify the President 

through the Secretary of Defense prior to making the presentation. 

The Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, January 8, 2025 

[FR Doc. 2025–00953 

Filed 1–13–25; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3710–08–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PRESDOCBIDEN.EPS</GPH>
Lane WARZYBOK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0022

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 4:06-cv-00012-A Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 75
 

 Case 4:06-cv-00012-A Document 14 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 76
Jason LOHNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-634

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Order entered January 26, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00893
- CV REFUGIO GOMEZ, ET AL ., Appellant s V. SOL LY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause N o. CC
- 11
- 06613
- D 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellee’s January 12, 2015, motion to dismiss. Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal because appellants failed to timely file their brief. Subsequently, appellants sought an extension and tendered their brief o n the merits for this case. This Court granted the extension and ordered the brief filed. Accordingly, we DENY appellee’s motion.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
K.S., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1730

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL GARCIA YANAGUI, aka

Garcia Gabriel, aka Gabriel Garcia, aka

Gabriel Garcia Yanaqui,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73674

Agency No. A073-928-002

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010 ** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Gabriel Garcia Yanagui, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen,

in which he challenged the denial of his application for relief from removal.

FILED

SEP 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73674

Petitioner contends that country conditions have changed in Mexico thereby

excusing the time and numerical bars to reopening his asylum, withholding, and

Convention Against Torture claims. Yanagui also contends that he would be

persecuted because he would be perceived as wealthy and a potential kidnapping

victim because he is a Mexicans returning from the United States, thereby entitling

him to asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. Petitioner failed to establish changed

country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioner and his circumstances. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th

Cir. 2008). In addition, petitioner failed to establish that he qualified as a member

of a cognizable social group, and therefore did not demonstrate prima facie

eligibility for the asylum, and withholding relief requested. See Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting as a particular social

group “returning Mexicans from the United States”). Petitioner also failed to

establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to

Mexico, and thereby he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for CAT

protection. See id. at 1152.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group, Population Sciences Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         March 6, 2025.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Christiane M. Robbins, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Rm 2121B, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-451-4989,                         *crobbins@mail.nih.gov*.                    
      ( print page 3229)    
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 8, 2025. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2025-00602 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Steven G. Holder, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ECC Capital Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

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, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent 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

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 16, 2005
Jaime GORDILLO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1099

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019

Jaime Gordillo, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Rodriguez v. State*, 223 So.3d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; *Zaetler v. State*, 627 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) ; *Iacono v. State*, 930 So.2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Robert L. WILLIAMSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-345

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 11, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
A.I. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2161049

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21

                                 SUBSIDIARIES OF
                         GROUP MAINTENANCE AMERICA CORP.
                             AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 1998

        A-ABC Appliance, Inc. (Texas)
        A-1 Appliance & Air Conditioning, Inc. (Texas)
        A-1 Mechanical of Lansing, Inc.  (Michigan)
        AA Advance Air, Inc.  (Florida)
        AA JARL, Inc. (Texas) (dba Jarrell Plumbing)
        Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc.  (Michigan)
        Air Conditioning, Plumbing and Heating Service Co., Inc.  (Colorado)
        Airtron, Inc. (Delaware)
        Airtron of Central Florida, Inc. (Florida)
        All Service Electric, Inc. (Florida)
        Arkansas Mechanical Services, Inc. (Arkansas)
        Callahan Roach Products & Publications, Inc. (Colorado)
        Central Carolina Air Conditioning Company (North Carolina)
        Charlie Crawford, Inc. (Texas)
        Costner Brothers, Inc. (South Carolina)
        Divco, Inc.  (Washington)
        Dynamic Software Corporation (Maryland)
        Evans Services, Inc. (Alabama)
        GroupMAC Holding Corp.  (Delaware)
        GroupMAC Management Co.  (Delaware)
        Hallmark Air Conditioning, Inc. (Texas)
        Hungerford Mechanical Corporation (Virginia)
        J.  D.  Steward Air Conditioning, Inc.  (Colorado)
        Jerry Albert Air Conditioning, Inc. (Texas)
        K & N Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.  (Texas)
        Linford Service Co.  (California)
        MacDonald-Miller Co., Inc.  (Washington)
        MacDonald-Miller Industries, Inc. (Washington)
        MacDonald-Miller Service, Inc.  (Washington)
        Masters, Inc. (Maryland)
        Mechanical Interiors, Inc.  (Texas)
        New Construction Air Conditioning, Inc.  (Michigan)
        Paul E. Smith Co., Inc.  (Indiana)
        Southeast Mechanical Service, Inc.  (Florida)
        Sibley Services, Incorporated (Tennessee)
        Sterling Air Conditioning, Inc.  (Texas)
        Suburban Acquisition Corp. (Delaware)
        United Acquisition Corp. (Iowa) (dba United Service Alliance)
        Valley Wide Plumbing and Heating, Inc.  (Colorado)
<PAGE>
        Van's Comfortemp Air Conditioning, Inc. (Florida)
        Wiegold & Sons, Inc.  (Florida)
        Willis Refrigeration, Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. (Ohio)
        Yale Incorporated (Minnesota)
Paul SAVAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1555

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 30, 2019

Paul Savage, Milton, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Horvatt v. State*, 266 So.3d 1268, 2019 WL 1302551 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 22, 2019).

COHEN, HARRIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Jill Dorian DIGERONIMO v. James Julian BEARDEN

2170028

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 20, 2017

Dismissed.