alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment #8 to the Trust Agreement



 Exhibit 10(i) 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER EIGHT 
  
 TO 
  
 GRANTOR TRUST AGREEMENT 

 
 THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the eighth day of July, 1997, by and between
THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY. INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), and THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Trustee”), 
  
 W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H  : 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee entered into a Grantor Trust Agreement dated as of November 16, 1993 (as amended from time to time, the
“Agreement”); 
  
 WHEREAS, Article TWELFTH of the
Agreement provides that the Company may amend the Agreement; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee agree as follows, effective July 8, 1997: 
  
 Exhibit I to the Agreement is amended by deleting Exhibit I in its entirety and substituting therefor Exhibit I in the form attached hereto. 

 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers under their corporate seals as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC.

					
	 	 	/s/    RUSSELL P. WELLINGER        	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/    DENO D. PAPAGEORGE        
	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Deno D. Papageorge
 Senior Executive Vice President

			
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK

					
	 	 	/s/    CATHERINE J. PLATT        	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/    GERARD STAFFORD - SMITH         
	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Name:
	 	Gerard Stafford - Smith
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	Assistant & Vice President

  

 - 1 - 








 Exhibit 10(i) 
 EXHIBIT I 
  

	1.	The Bank of New York Company, Inc. Excess Benefit Plan 

  

	2.	The Bank of New York Company, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan 

  

	3.	Agreements between The Bank of New York Company, Inc. and the following persons: 

  

			
	 Individual

	  	Date of Agreement


	Alan R. Griffith	  	October 11, 1994
	Joseph A. Grimaldi	  	April 11, 1995
	Gerald L. Hassell	  	April 11, 1995
	Newton P.S. Merrill	  	October 11, 1994
	Donald R. Monks	  	January 14, 1997
	Robert J. Mueller	  	October 11, 1994
	Richard A. Pace	  	October 11, 1994
	Thomas A. Renyi	  	October 11, 1994
	Bruce W. Van Saun	  	July 8, 1997

  

 -2-
Verlena SEXTON-WALKER, petitioner, v. GREAT EXPRESSIONS DENTAL CENTERS, P.C.

No. 12-10771.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of GreenHunter Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer, in his capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his knowledge:



| | 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: July 16, 2015 |  |  |  | /s/    Gary C. Evans                
|                    |  |  |  | Gary C. Evans                       
|                    |  |  |  | Chairman and Interim Chief Executive
|                    |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)




























(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)







(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)


(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)

(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)








 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 




 







 





























(b) (4)












































(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
Juan Oscar RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10341.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1411 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1411

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that a convention 
or association of churches includes individuals (with or without voting 
                      rights) as well as churches.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

  Mr. Linder introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that a convention 
or association of churches includes individuals (with or without voting 
                      rights) as well as churches.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF CONVENTION OR ASSOCIATION OF CHURCHES.

    (a) In General.--Section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to definitions) is amended by redesignating subsection (o) as 
subsection (p) and by inserting after subsection (n) the following new 
subsection:
    ``(o) Convention or Association of Churches.--For purposes of this 
title, any organization which is otherwise a convention or association 
of churches shall not fail to so qualify merely because the membership 
of such organization includes individuals as well as churches or 
because individuals have voting rights in such organization.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                           EXHIBIT 10.53



* CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY THE
BRACKETS, HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO RULE 24b-2 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.

                   AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ENBREL SUPPLY AGREEMENT

         This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ENBREL SUPPLY AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is
entered into effective as of the 20th day of September 2002 by and between
Genentech Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Genentech") and Immunex Corporation, a
Washington corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc. ("Immunex"),
and amends that certain Enbrel Supply Agreement entered into by Genentech and
Immunex on April 12, 2002 (the "Agreement").

         For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, Genentech and Immunex (the "Parties") agree as
follows:

1.       Section 5.2(b) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as
         follows:

         "5.2 (b) Completion of Milestone II: Final Release of Third Successful
         Qualification Batch of Bulk Drug: Immunex shall pay Genentech [*]
         Dollars ($[*]) upon the completion of Milestone II, provided that [*];
         and, in addition, Genentech shall also be entitled to receive
         additional payments of [*], which such additional payment amounts shall
         be payable upon [*]. [*]."

2.       All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set
         forth in the Agreement.

3.       Except as set forth herein, all other terms of the Agreement remain in
         full force and effect.

4.       This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
         deemed an original, and all of which, taken together, shall constitute
         one and the same instrument. This Amendment shall be effective upon
         full execution by facsimile or original, and a facsimile signature
         shall be deemed to be and shall be as effective as an original
         signature. This Amendment may not be amended except by a written
         instrument duly executed and delivered by both Parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective as
of the date set forth above.

GENENTECH, INC.                                IMMUNEX CORPORATION

By:          /s/ David Eberman                 By:      /s/ Douglas Williams
    -------------------------------------          -----------------------------
David Eberman                                  Douglas Williams
Senior Vice President of Product Operations    Senior Vice President, Operations
Date: 9/24/2002                                Date: 9/20/2002

* Confidential Treatment Requested.

                                        1
#### HARKOW, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Respondent. (Six cases.) (Actions Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Joseph H. Hark-ow against the Ñew York City Railway Company.

No opinion. Motions for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Settle orders on notice. See 105 Ñ. Y. Supp. 689, 691.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No. 3:13-CR-58 RLM

)

DALE MARSHALL )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation upon a plea of guilty issued on June 25, 2013 [Doc. No. 8].

Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those findings and the recommendation,

ACCEPTS defendant Dale Marshall’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant

guilty of Count 1 of the Information, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: July 15, 2013 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-17   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 3

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-17   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 3

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-17   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 3
----

----

|                                             | PhotoMedex, Inc. |                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |             |                                                        |   |
| Date:  May 17, 2010     | By:              | /s/ Christina L. Allgeier                              |   |
|                                             |             | Name:  Christina L. Allgeier                      |   |
|                                             |             | Title:    Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|                                             |             |                                                        |   |

----

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

COREY MCNAMEE, )

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-CV-260-JTM-PRC

)

FAMILY FOCUS, INC., )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal [DE

37], filed on December 3, 2015, by Defendant Family Focus, Inc. Plaintiff Corey McNamee has not

filed a response to this motion, and the time to do so has passed.

Defendant asks the Court’s leave to file under seal discovery responses. The discovery

responses contain payroll information for current and former employees of Defendant, and

Defendant has identified this information as confidential pursuant to the protective order issued in

this case.

Ordinarily, this discovery would be exchanged solely between the parties, and “[s]ecrecy is

fine at the discovery stage, before the material enters the judicial record.” See Baxter Int’l, Inc. v.

Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20

(1984)). However, because Plaintiff is pro se, all discovery materials in this case must be filed on

the docket. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 26-2. Because these documents contain confidential information as

defined in the protective order and because these documents are on the docket solely as discovery

and not as evidence to be brought to the Court’s attention, the Court finds that secrecy is still

acceptable. However, any party that uses these documents as evidence in this case cannot rely on

this order as authorization to file the documents under seal for that purpose.
Finding the matter well taken, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File

Documents Under Seal [DE 37] and ORDERS that the following documents REMAIN UNDER

SEAL: Documents Responsive to Request No. 2 Pay-Check Detail [DE 39], Documents Responsive

to Request No. 2 Pay Rates [DE 40], Documents Responsive to Request No. 3 [DE 41], Documents

Responsive to Request No. 4 [DE 41], and Documents Responsive to Request No. 9 [DE 43].

SO ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: Corey McNamee, pro se

2
Philip J. TAVERNA, petitioner, v. ATLANTIC VAN BUREN ROAD, LLC, et al.

No. 13-6343.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1463 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1463

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 2100 Jamieson 
  Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Justin W. Williams United 
                      States Attorney's Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    (a) In General.--The building and structure described in subsection 
(b) shall be known and designated as the ``Justin W. Williams United 
States Attorney's Building''.
    (b) Description.--The building and structure to be designated under 
subsection (a) is that portion of the Federal building located at 2100 
Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, that is attached to the 
Federal building's main tower structure, described as A-Wing in the 
architectural plans, and currently occupied by the Office of the United 
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria 
Division.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building and structure described in 
section 1(b) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Justin W. 
Williams United States Attorney's Building''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary for appropriate identifying designations to be affixed to the 
building and structure described in section 1(b) and for an appropriate 
plaque reflecting the designation and honoring Justin W. Williams and 
his service to the Nation to be affixed to or displayed in such 
building and structure.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11569]



[[Page 25204]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Technology Issues; 
Meetings

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Technology 
Issues will meet in closed session on June 14, 1995 at the Pentagon, 
Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will work with the JCS Chairman and Vice Chairman in support of 
the Expanded JROC activities. The Task Force should place special 
emphasis on the application of technology to enhance the effectiveness 
of the evolving force structure within tight fiscal constraints and 
should also place a special focus on issues dealing with operations 
other than war.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting, concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 5, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Defense of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-11569 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Exhibit 32.2
 
 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 Quarterly Report of DNB Financial Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald F. Sopp, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Gerald F. Sopp
 Gerald F. Sopp
 Chief Financial Officer
 May 11, 2011
Angela ROBINSON, et vir, petitioners, v. CITY OF HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

No. 12-9692.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Amendment to Inventory and Working Capital Financing Agreement




  
 Exhibit 10(oo) 
  
 AMENDMENT TO INVENTORY AND WORKING CAPITAL FINANCING AGREEMENT

  
 This AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) to the INVENTORY
AND WORKING CAPITAL FINANCING AGREEMENT is made as of January 15, 2004 by and between CompuCom Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Customer”) and IBM Credit LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“IBM
Credit”). 
  
 RECITALS: 
  
 WHEREAS, Customer and IBM Credit have entered into that certain
Inventory and Working Capital Financing Agreement dated as of May 11, 1999 (and as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Customer and IBM Credit desire that certain provisions of the Agreement, including, without limitation,
certain terms set forth on Attachment A be amended subject to the conditions set forth below. 
  
 AGREEMENT 
  
 NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the value and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Agreement is amended as follows:

  
 Section 1. Definitions. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined
herein shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Agreement. 
  
 Section 2. Amendment. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 A. The Agreement is amended by deleting Attachment A in its entirety and substituting, in lieu thereof, the Attachment A attached hereto. Such new Attachment A shall be effective as of the date specified in the new
Attachment A. The changes contained in such new Attachment A include, without limitation: (i) a change in the amount of the aggregate Credit Facility from One Hundred Fifty Million Dollars ($150,000,000) to Seventy – Five Million Dollars
($75,000,000), (ii) a withdrawal of any advance ratio against eligible inventory not financed by IBM Credit, (iii) establishment of April 1, 2004 as the new Termination Date, (iv) a change in the Collateral Insurance Amount from Seventy - Five
Million Dollars ($75,000,000) to Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000). 
  
 Section 3. Ratification of Agreement. Except as specifically amended hereby, all the provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 Section 4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

  
 Section 5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number
of counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one agreement. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by duly authorized representatives of the undersigned as of the day and year first above
written. 
  

			
	IBM CREDIT LLC	  	COMPUCOM SYSTEMS, INC.
	  
 (PLEASE PRINT
NAME AND TITLE)
	  	(PLEASE PRINT NAME AND TITLE)

  


					
	 	 	Page 1 of 1	 	March 9, 2004
Leilani NEUMANN, et vir, petitioners, v. WISCONSIN.

No. 13-6669.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.