alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 8 to the National City Savings and Investment Plan



 Exhibit 4.7.9 
 AMENDMENT NO. 8 
 TO THE NATIONAL CITY 
 SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN 
 (as amended and restated effective January 1,
2001) 
  
  
 National City Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and National City Bank, a national banking association, Trustee, hereby evidence the adoption of this
Amendment No. 8 to the National City Savings and Investment Plan, as amended and restated as of January 1, 2001 (the “Plan”). 
 1.
Effective November 30, 2006, Section 1.1 of Article I of the Plan is hereby amended by the deletion of paragraph (a) of subsection (14) thereunder in its entirety and the substitution in lieu thereof of a new paragraph
(a) to read as follows: 
 “(14) Covered Employee: (a) An Employee of an Employer, including a salaried
executive officer but not a director, as such, but excluding: (i) any person employed as a student intern, (ii) any person who is a law enforcement officer employed by a local, county or state government and who is hired by an Employer to
perform off-duty security services, (iii) any person who is an Employee of an Employer who is included in its Special Project Employee Employment classification, (iv) any Employee who is a nonresident alien and who receives no earned
income (within the meaning of Code section 911(d)(2)) from the Controlled Group which constitutes income from sources within the United States (within the meaning of Code section 861(a)(3), (v) any person who is a leased employee (within the
meaning of Section 1.1(20)), or (vi) any employee of Harbor Federal Savings Bank who was not initially hired or rehired after December 31, 2006.” 
 2. Effective as of the dates set forth herein below, Article XVII of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new Sections at the end thereof: 
 “17.46 Appendix AT – Relating to the acquisition of Harbor Florida Bancshares by National City Corporation. Attached
hereto and made a part of this Plan is Appendix AT which relates to the acquisition of Harbor Florida Bancshares by National City Corporation and is effective as of November 30, 2006. 







 This Amendment No. 8 is executed at
Cleveland, Ohio this 29th day of November, 2006 but effective as otherwise set forth above. 
  

									
	NATIONAL CITY BANK, TRUSTEE	 	 	 	NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher J. Dziak
	 		 	By:	 	 Jon N. Couture

	Title:	 	 Assistant Vice President
	 		 	Title:	 	Senior Vice President and Corporate HR Director
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 Jeffrey D. Kelly

		 		 		 	Title:	 	Vice Chairman and CFO

  

 2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10268 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-102-Y

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1996 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Hernandez appeals the 87-month sentence imposed by the district court following the acceptance of his guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Hernandez argues that the district court clearly erred in not finding that he was a minor participant in the drug conspiracy and reducing his offense level accordingly under § 3B1.2 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Because Hernandez was responsible for aNo. 96-10268 - 2 - large quantity of methamphetamine, 1.8 kilograms, seized from his residence, and because he was held responsible for only the amount of drugs that he actually possessed, § 3B1.2 does not require a reduction in his base offense level even though his activity in the overall drug conspiracy may have been minor. United States v. Atanda , 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Lampkins , 47 F.3d 175, 180-81 (7th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1440 (1995).
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


     In connection with the Annual Report of Chartwell Internatioal, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies, 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.


/s/ Janice A. Jones
------------------------
Janice A. Jones
President, Chief Executive and Financial Officer

October 19, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6788
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LORENZO ADDERLY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:95-cr-00074-RLW; 3:07-cv-00194-RLW) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Adderly, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Adderly seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying: (1) his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and (2) his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of that order. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Adderly 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- 3 - contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Odarius Lenard JAMISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3274

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL**

 

**OFFICEROF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND PARTNERS, LP**

 

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with thereport on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009of Hiland Partners LP (the “Company”) and filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew S. Harrison,Chief Financial Officer, Vice President-Finance and Secretary of HilandPartners GP, LLC, the general partner of Company, hereby certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                 The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 10,  2009 | /s/ Matthew S. Harrison                                        |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | Matthew S. Harrison                                            |
|                        | Chief Financial  Officer, Vice President-Finance and Secretary |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS 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 Quarterly Report of Cono Italiano, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mitchell Brown, Principal Executive 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, to my knowledge that:





(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





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





Date: May 20, 2011








By:
/s/ Mitchell BrownName:    Mitchell BrownTitle:      Principal Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRODGERICK TRENDON ELLIS §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. § 

§ NO. 3-06-CV-0200-P

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. 

SO ORDERED this 9 day of March 2006. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00200-P Document 5 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 53
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

BARBARA ANN JOHNSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2731 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 11, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge. Ronald N. Toward, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KHOUZAM, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

        Information for Consumers and Patients | Drugs

Tips for Parents Home
          Drugs
          Resources | Drugs
          Information for Consumers and Patients | Drugs
          Tips for ParentsInformation for Consumers and Patients | Drugs Tips for Parents
  	
        Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintInformation for ParentsTips For Parents on Over-the-Counter MedicinesDid you know...  Generic medicines work the same as brand-nameMedicines In My Home - MIMHFDA Consumer UpdatesChildren's HealthSpecial Topics: Pediatrics

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      05/17/2018Tips for Parents
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3481

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kyle G. Gibler, also known as Kyle Gibler

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

 ____________

 Submitted: July 3, 2024

Filed: July 9, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

 

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kyle Gibler appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to a child pornography offense pursuant to a written plea agreement containing

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the

issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.

2010) (stating that this court reviews de novo the validity and applicability of an

appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (stating that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the

scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea

agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage

of justice).

To the extent Gibler is attempting to raise claims that counsel was ineffective,

we decline to consider such claims on direct appeal. See United States v. RamirezHernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (establishing that ineffectiveassistance claims are usually best raised in collateral proceedings where the record

can be properly developed).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the

appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, grant counsel leave to withdraw,

and deny Gibler’s motions for appointment of new counsel.

______________________________

-2-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

STEVEN JOHN KOSSUP

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

FROM INACTIVE STATUS :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 210 DB 201 6 (No. 17 RST 2017)

Attorney Registration No. 75129

( Out of State )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13 th day of March, 2017 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated March 2 , 2017 , is approved and it is ORDERED that

Steven J ohn Kossup

, who has been on Inactive Status

, has never been suspended or

disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall

be paid by the Petitioner.
**EXHIBIT
      32**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHAIRMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








The
      undersigned hereby certifies that the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
      Millstream II Acquisition Corporation (“the Registrant”) for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.




Dated:
      November 29, 2006




/s/
                  Arthur SpectorArthur
                  SpectorChairman
                  of the Board,President
                  and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
                  (Principal executive,financial
                  and accounting officer)
Case 3:05-cr-00292-MHP Document 34 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 1
Karl A. KUMMER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO, as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4238

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. TRUE BUILDERS, INC., THROUGH ASSIGNMENT FROM Lorenzo RIVERA-CRUZ, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE David HOPPER

CR-17-0387

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Etowah Cir. Ct.
IN RE: Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 18-PDB-108

NO. 2019-OB-0461

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

Leave to appeal denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
”

. p.- 53’8

**OFFICE OF**  **‘ tklE**  **AlTONNEY BENENAL.**  **OF 7Ex.U**  **AUemN** **-*--** **. ..c**  **, ’**  **0** ********‘**

**. t** 

**,**

muoh hanlrr tar l

ny other ‘ purpo~~e

wh~tsoevtr 18 hlbited; . . . haroby Proprori6.a further th:t when thafbit<WZ furi6I -

- c -. 5%

city l9i.m -8 mbaltt.4 to thfr daputmrnt by th4 Sean tal-y

4na Tru4urer 

# ot thb 

# city **ot** Ar4n448 Parr on 

## Auglut4, 1940, an 4pplio4tlaa 

## tor r4fuaQlag bon44 

### in the mm at ?3woa ‘ChouslndDoll4rr ($ll,OOO.OO)

## to bo

### 00188 duo and pw8blo 0oteb.r 1, 1940. A8 

### roroaled by tha , reoord in aala oau thrrans than on haad in the Anklry trurd arwB.ll 0md.r ~ it a8 crud **by** the This ;8~th k~l414t4a-4 a rrdtloioat444 

# ot monof to ntin J - 8tandln& boad8'i401u4i4& the N4t44 Thou44nb mll4r l?4- tuna* 130~28mqu48trd ~143 thtaw-0 184~4a 4t rid 

### tim0. Bl*ra hate bun a0 boar ot &am48 P448 rulmftt*d t4 thfr 4op*rt4l*lIt #ill 0 4 8dd dat e,

u&d l in o e t ror Bal d n oor d

tt $8 appannt that thora f r **aut~iolrat** m o ar y in t he

r lnkin fg 

### tun4 arrrtod under the Aot by thr thirtpslxth Lmgi8l4tum to ntin 111 outrt4idfngbond4 totad thomua~or, raid Aot by rirtue 

# 0r it8 own term4 au4e4 to be opsr8tirr and the **donation8 thornin**  **mndr have**  aoared.

Yo u l e, thrmforr, 86rl406 that in the oplnloa of this ae~rtmant ou ahaUl6 (Lireot 

### tha Tax &88e@aOrCollrotor to p4y 4l I: stat4 8a ~414r4~ turr 00ii00toa in aaa pdriolo 

# couaty not 

### nqulr.6 to pay the out4t4ndiry bond8 i8auma **unaor** 8814 Aot to the Tru8umr ot the **6trt.a** Or Texa8 ~8 nqulx'4d **by** 14wr your* wry 

### truly ATTC~Y OXRRRAL 

### CF TEXA6
f8k011908ex10v_mmg.htm


     

     

    Exhibit
10.5

    
       

      


       

      
        CONVERSION
AGREEMENT

        


        This
Conversion Agreement
(the “Agreement”), dated as
of January 19, 2009, is made and entered into by and between Mega Media Group,
Inc. (the “Company”), and ESJA
Enterprises Inc. (the “Holder”).

        


        RECITALS

        


        WHEREAS, the Holder holds a 9%
promissory note with an outstanding principal amount of $90,000.00 and interest
amount of $0 (the “Note”), dated
February 11, 2008 for a total of $90,000.00 which has been assumed by the
Company; and

        


        WHEREAS, the Holder has agreed
to convert the Note, including accrued interest thereon, into shares of the
Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”), on
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.

        


        NOW, THEREFORE, intending to
be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows:

        


        
          	
                  1.  

                	
                  Conversion. The Holder
      shall convert the outstanding principal due under the Note, together with
      any interest accrued thereon through the date of conversion, into shares
      of the Company's Common Stock, at the rate of $0.01 per share (the “Conversion”)
      for a total of 9,000,000 shares. The Conversion shall be considered
      payment in full by the Company of the Note and the conversion method in
      the Note shall be waived. The Holder shall deliver the Note to the Company
      for cancellation.

                


        

        


        
          	
                  2.  

                	
                  Binding Effect. This
      instrument is being executed by the Holder and shall be binding upon its
      successors and assigns for the uses and purposes above set forth and
      referred to, and shall be effective as of the date
  hereof.

                


        

        


        
          	
                  3.  

                	
                  Governing Law. This
      instrument shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws
      of the State of New York without any application of the principles of
      conflicts of laws.

                


        

        


        
 

        
          
            
            

          

          
            -1-

            
              

            

          

          
            
            

          

        

        


        
 

        


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Agreement has been duly executed by the Company and Holder as of the date first
above written.

        


        MEGA
MEDIA GROUP, INC.

         

        /s/
Alex
Shvarts                                    


                                                                                                          
 Alex Shvarts, CEO

        


        THE
HOLDER

         

        /s/
Alex
Kulnevsky                                            


        Alex
Kulnevsky

        ESJA

         

         

         

        -2-