alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

                          AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN TO THE
                            BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.
                            EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

         Amendment made this 11th day of December, 1997, by Beverly
Enterprises, Inc. (the "Corporation").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Corporation sponsors the Amended and Restated
Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Executive Retirement Plan (the
"Retirement Plan");

         WHEREAS, the Corporation now desires to adopt an amendment to the
Retirement Plan to provide for the transfer of a Participant's interest pursuant
to domestic relations order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction
incident to a divorce;

         WHEREAS, the Corporation is empowered and authorized to amend the
Retirement Plan pursuant to Article VIII of the Plan, as amended;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Retirement Plan is hereby amended effective
September 1, 1997 in the following respects:

         1. The Plan is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph to the
end of existing Article 9:

                Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Participant's benefits under
the Plan are subject to division pursuant to a domestic relations order which is
entered by a court of competent jurisdiction incident to a divorce, however, the
person claiming any interest in the Plan as result of such an order shall be
entitled to only those benefits under the Plan to which the affected Participant
would have been entitled. Furthermore, the interest of such transferee shall be
subject to all the terms and conditions of the Plan, including without
limitation those provisions relating to timing and form of payment and vesting
of benefits. Moreover, the Company reserves the right to withhold from any
payments to such transferee or any compensation due the Participant, any income
and FICA taxes, and any other sums, as required by applicable law.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be
executed by a duly authorized representative, as of the day and year first
written above.

                                           BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.


                                           By:
                                           Its:



                                       1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

             CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      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 West Pointe Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Terry W. Schaefer, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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


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


March 30, 2005                             /s/ Terry W. Schaefer
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Terry W. Schaefer
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to West Pointe Bancorp, Inc. and will
be retained by West Pointe Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2017347EN.01002101.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/21

---

Action brought on 21 August 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-503/17)

(2017/C 347/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat, J. Tomkin, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purpose of fuelling private pleasure craft, the United Kingdom has breached its obligations under Directive 95/60/EC (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purpose of fuelling private pleasure craft, the United Kingdom has breached its obligations under Directive 95/60/EC (1);

1

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that permitting the sale of marked fuel for propelling private pleasure craft is fundamentally incompatible with the Directive 95/60/EC (the ‘Fiscal Marking Directive’). The obligation to mark fuel that has been subject to a reduced rate of excise duty is intended specifically to ensure that those fuels are readily distinguishable from fuel in respect of which full duty has been paid. However, the effect of the national measure is that where marked fuel is found in a tank of a private pleasure craft that has been refuelled in the United Kingdom, it is not possible to determine by reference to the marking, whether or not the fuel used was subject to a full or discounted rate of excise duty.

---

(1)  Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene (OJ 1995, L 291, p. 46).

1

---
1

Case No. 17-CV-00062-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY; STRIKING DISPUTED NOTICE LANGUAGE; DENYING REQUEST 

FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RODERICK MAGADIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00062-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY; 

STRIKING DISPUTED NOTICE 

LANGUAGE; DENYING REQUEST 

FOR CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 87, 88, 90

Defendant’s motion to stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) is DENIED. 

ECF No. 88. 

The Court STRIKES the following disputed language from the class notice: “If you do not 

ask to be excluded, during this litigation, Class Counsel may be entitled to receive various 

documents concerning your employment such as your pay records. If you have questions about 

this, you should contact Class Counsel.” See ECF No. 87. 

The Court DENIES the parties’ request for a case management conference. ECF No. 90.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00062-LHK Document 92 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

v. § Criminal Action No. 3:05-CR-079-L (01)

§

LESTER RAY MORGAN, #33486-177. §

ORDER

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, who entered Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on July 10,

2012, recommending that: (1) Defendant Lester RayMorgan (“Defendant”)should be granted a sixday extension of time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) because he has shown excusable

neglect for the delay in filing a notice of appeal; and (2) his motion to proceed in forma pauperis

should be denied because his appeal presents no legal points of arguable merit. Defendant filed

objections to the Report on July 26, 2012, contending that the magistrate judge’s findings that his

appeal is frivolous goes beyond what the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

directed this court to determine regarding excusable neglect.

Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions

of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate

judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, and overrules Defendant’s objection. In

addition to referring the issue of whether Defendant has shown excusable neglect, this court also

referred to the magistrate judgeDefendant’s January26, 2012 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 53). In determining whether Defendant should be granted leave to proceed in forma

Order – Page 1

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00079-L Document 64 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 267
pauperis on appeal as requested, the magistrate judge properly considered whether the appeal is

taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

The court grants Defendant a six-dayextension of time to appeal under Fed. R. App. 4(b)(4),

and his appeal filed on January 26, 2012, is deemed timely; the court denies Defendant’s Motion

for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 53). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R.

App. P. 24(a)(3), the court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. In support of the

finding that the appeal is not taken in good faith, the court adopts and incorporates by reference its

January 5, 2012 order, denying Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). Although the court has certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith, Defendant

may challenge this finding by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with

the Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within 30 days of this order.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to return this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit. 

It is so ordered this 7th day of August, 2012.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Order – Page 2

 

 Case 3:05-cr-00079-L Document 64 Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 268
Zoterrian JONES v. STATE

CR-16-1160

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                PRIDE, INC.
                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pride, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Schumacher, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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.



/s/ Michael Schumacher
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Director

February 28, 2005
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIONAMERICA INSURANCE CO.,LIMITED, Successor-in-interest to ST. PAULREINSURANCE,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE FORT MILLER GROUP, INC.,THE FORT MILLER CO. andBEECHE SYSTEMS CORP.,

Defendant(s).

)))))))))))))))

No. C05-1912 BZ

ORDER REFERRING CASE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

     IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is referred to a

magistrate judge for a settlement conference to be held in

December of 2008 or January of 2009.   

Dated: October 29, 2008

     Bernard Zimmerman 

  United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\UNIONAMERICA V. FORT MILLER\ORDER OF REFERRAL OF SETTCONF.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ   Document 172   Filed 10/29/08   Page 1 of 1
Jerry Lee MATTHEWS v. STATE

CR-17-0188

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of Community Bancorp Inc. (the Company) that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.



|                        |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Edward M. Jamison                            
|                        |  | Edward M. Jamison                                
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                        | 
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Cathy Robinson                               
|                        |  | Cathy Robinson.                                  
|                        |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to Community Bancorp and will be retained by Community Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Janet RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. ALS COMMERCIAL FUNDING, LLC, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1709

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019.

Janet Rodriguez, in proper person.

Bassett Law Firm, P.A., and Heidi J. Bassett (Tampa); Daniel Y. Gielchinsky, P.A., and Daniel Y. Gielchinsky, Aventura, for appellee.

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

HENDON, J.

Having reviewed the appellant's initial brief, this court finds that there exists no preliminary basis for reversal of the cause *1091below. We affirm pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a).

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Matthew D. TRAPP

1161116 (CR-16-0083)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                                  to 
                         Certificate Holders

                                                           Ending
Class        Interest           Principal       Losses     Balance
<S>          <C>                <C>             <C>         <C> 
A1              1,239,650.00              0.00       0.00   24,793,000.00
A10               686,838.18     16,153,488.07       0.00    2,981,511.96
A11             2,080,050.00              0.00       0.00   41,601,000.00
A12             4,843,998.48      6,357,893.90       0.00   92,768,502.11
A13             1,140,600.00              0.00       0.00   22,812,000.00
A14               795,050.00              0.00       0.00   15,901,000.00
A15                     0.00              0.00       0.00      290,300.00
A2                449,964.96              0.00       0.00    8,709,000.00
A3                275,420.95        466,948.25       0.00    5,243,851.77
A4              4,494,509.69        514,082.15       0.00   89,598,917.85
A5                318,450.00              0.00       0.00    6,369,000.00
A6                466,948.25       (466,948.25)      0.00    9,603,532.23
A7                184,850.00              0.00       0.00    3,697,000.00
A8              1,550,000.00              0.00       0.00   31,000,000.00
A9              3,416,855.11      8,553,515.16       0.00   61,828,304.81
APO                     0.00         27,328.40       0.00    2,061,950.45
AR                      0.63            100.00       0.00            0.00
AWIO              877,321.94              0.00       0.00            0.00
B1                363,099.99         41,531.39       0.00    7,238,468.61
B2                105,388.78         12,054.39       0.00    2,100,945.63
B3                 70,275.81          8,038.15       0.00    1,400,961.85
B4                 46,883.78          5,362.58       0.00      934,637.43
B5                 58,572.25          1,060.49   1,639.00    1,167,649.32
M                 292,774.33         33,487.53       0.00    5,836,512.46





</TABLE>
Timothy Lee ROBINSON v. STATE

CR-15-1260

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, J. Peter Farquhar, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tarpon Industries,
Inc.;

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
financial condition, 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 officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 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, is made 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 the
         effectiveness 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
         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

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on 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):

<PAGE>

         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; and

         b) 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.


Date:  August 15, 2005


/s/ J. Peter Farquhar
---------------------
J. Peter Farquhar
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 39 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 360
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 39

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health 
   and Human Services relating to ``Vaccine and Mask Requirements To 
       Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head Start Programs''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2022

  Mr. Thune (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Cramer, Mr. 
 Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, 
 Mr. Lee, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Moran, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rounds, 
   Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. 
Fischer, Mr. Lankford, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. 
 Sullivan, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Paul, Mr. Braun, and Mr. Graham) introduced 
 the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to 
        the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

                              May 3, 2022

  Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health 
   and Human Services relating to ``Vaccine and Mask Requirements To 
       Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head Start Programs''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating 
to ``Vaccine and Mask Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 
in Head Start Programs'' (86 Fed. Reg. 68052 (November 30, 2021)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.

                                                       Calendar No. 360

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 39

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
 United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health 
   and Human Services relating to ``Vaccine and Mask Requirements To 
       Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Head Start Programs''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 3, 2022

  Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar
```