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

Exhibit 10.1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
NEW YORK MORTGAGE TRUST, INC.
2017 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


    This Second Amendment to the New York Mortgage Trust, Inc. 2017 Equity Incentive Plan  (as amended from time to time, the “2017 Equity Incentive Plan”), is made and adopted by New York Mortgage Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”). 


W I T N E S S E T H:


    WHEREAS, the Company previously adopted the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, under which the Company is authorized to grant equity-based incentive awards to certain employees and other service providers of the Company and its affiliates; 


    WHEREAS, Article XVIII of the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan provides that the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”) may amend the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan from time to time, except that any amendment to materially increase the number of shares of common stock of the Company (the “Shares”) that may be issued under the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan must be approved by the stockholders of the Company; and


    WHEREAS, the Board now desires to amend the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan to increase the number of Shares available for awards under the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan by 30,000,000 Shares, subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan shall be amended, effective as of April 19, 2021, subject to approval by the Company’s stockholders, as set forth below:


1.    Section 5.02 of the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:


Aggregate Limit.


Subject to adjustment as provided under Article XIV, the maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered with respect to Awards under the Plan (and the maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan through incentive stock options granted under the Plan) is equal to 43,170,000 shares.


FURTHER RESOLVED, that, except as amended hereby, the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan shall continue to read in the current state and is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.




[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20317]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than October 6, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Jeffrey Imgarten, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Robin Burch, Tulsa, Oklahoma; a member of the Burch Family 
Group, a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of Security 
Bancshares Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of 
Security State Bank of Oklahoma, both of Wewoka, Oklahoma.
    Additionally, Pier 6 Investment Company, LLC, Tipton Burch, as 
managing member, both of Tulsa, Oklahoma; to retain voting shares of 
Security Bancshares Corporation, and thereby indirectly retain voting 
shares of Security State Bank of Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 15, 
2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-20317 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
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 Annual Report of TransAct Technologies Incorporated (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Steven A. DeMartino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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) 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.








Date:  March
16,
2009





/s/
      Steven A. DeMartinoSteven
      A. DeMartino
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 29, 2018*

Decided January 30, 2018

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 17-3002

WANDA E. TORRENCE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT for the 

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for 

the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 17 C 3120

Amy J. St. Eve, Judge.

Order

We held in Torrence’s bankruptcy case that her contention that the 

bankruptcy judge, district judge, litigants, and lawyers all had discriminated 

 * This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). 

We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record 

adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the 

court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 17-3002 Page 2

against her because of her hearing difficulties had been waived and was baseless 

as a matter of fact. Torrence v. Comcast Corp., No. 16-2544 (7th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016) at 

slip op. 4 (nonprecedential disposition).

Disregarding our conclusion, Torrence then sued the Bankruptcy Court and 

multiple additional parties, demanding compensation for the supposed 

discrimination. The suit was dismissed as barred by principles of issue and claim 

preclusion. Torrence appeals again.

The district court’s decision is correct. Torrence appears to believe that as 

long as she names new parties, she can continue litigating questions that have 

been resolved against her. That belief is incorrect. Our earlier decision binds 

Torrence whether or not it binds anyone else, and third parties such as the 

defendants in this suit therefore are entitled to its benefit. See Blonder-Tongue 

Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971) (discussing 

principles of nonmutual preclusion).

The current suit is frivolous for this and other reasons, which need not be 

explored. Torrence must understand that if she continues to litigate claims or 

theories that have been resolved against her, she will be ordered to pay financial 

penalties for frivolous litigation.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00441

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.L.W., E.L.W., R.A.W. AND R.L.W.

, Children

From the 224th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Co urt No. 2021PA01022 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due July 28, 2022 , but was not filed. On July 29, 2022 , the court reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension of fifteen days to file the

record.

Accordingly, we GRANT the court reporter’s request for an extension of time and ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record in this court by August 12 , 20 22 . The court reporter is reminded that strict deadlines exist with regard to disposal of appeals dealing with termination of parental rights. We further remind the court reporter that in appeals from orders terminating the appellant’s parental rights, we may not grant extensions of time to file the appellate record that exceed 30 days cumulat ively. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4(b).

I t is so ORDERED on this 29th day of July, 2022

.

PER CURIAM

ATT ESTED TO:

______________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2196 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an increase 

in the limit on the length of an agreement under the Medicare independence at home medical practice demonstration program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2015 

Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. 

SMITH of New Jersey, and Mr. FORBES) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for an increase in the limit on the length of an agreement 

under the Medicare independence at home medical practice demonstration program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Independence 

5 at Home Medical Practice Demonstration Improvement 

6 Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2196 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN THE LIMIT ON THE LENGTH OF AN 

2 AGREEMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE INDE3 PENDENCE AT HOME MEDICAL PRACTICE 

4 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. 

5 Section 1866E(e)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1395cc–5(e)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘3-year’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘5-year’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1567

GLENDA DEATON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:16-cv-02272-TLW)

Submitted: February 4, 2019 Decided: March 26, 2019

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa, Wisconsin, for 

Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South 

Carolina; Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Stephen Giacchino, Supervisory 

Attorney, Mary Ann Mullaney, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Glenda Deaton appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of 

Deaton’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. 

“In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as 

does the district court.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 

2017). On appeal, Deaton challenges only the Appeals Council’s treatment of the new 

evidence Deaton submitted to the Council.

We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The Appeals 

Council did not err in concluding that the new evidence Deaton submitted to it did not 

require remand to the ALJ, nor did it err in denying her request for review. Meyer v. 

Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 704-05 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating standard); see Wilkins v. Sec’y, 

Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 953 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2021455EN.01000301.xml

| 10.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/3

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia

(2021/C 455/03)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 (2), concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia.

1

2

The Council has received information from the Tunisian authorities that will be considered within the framework of the annual review of the restrictive measures concerning all persons listed in the Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP and in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011. The persons concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the information that relates to them, before 17 November 2021, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 5 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP and Article 12(4) of Regulation (EU) No 101/2011.

---

(1)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62.

1

(2)  OJ L 31, 5.2.2011, p. 1.

2

---
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 13

- 01048

- CR
LUIS SANCHEZ ACOSTA , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County

.

(Tr. Ct. No. 1881137 ).
The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on November 12 , 2013. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that the record reveals error in the trial court’s judgment. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings

.
The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered June 9 , 2015.
Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.
# C_2021219EN.01000801.xml

| 9.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/8

---

Special report No 8/2021

Frontex’s support to external border management:

not sufficiently effective to date

(2021/C 219/08)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report No 8/2021 ‘Frontex’s support to external border management: not sufficiently effective to date’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2174 

To amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to provide flexibility 

and reauthorization to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of 

Native American languages. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, Mr. COLE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HONDA, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. 

RUIZ, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to 

provide flexibility and reauthorization to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Native American Lan5 guages Reauthorization Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2174 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES GRANT PROGRAM. 

2 Section 803C of the Native American Programs Act 

3 of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991b–3) is amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (b)(7)— 

5 (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking 

6 ‘‘10’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’; and 

7 (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking 

8 ‘‘15’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (e)(2)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘or 3-year basis’’ and in11 serting ‘‘3-year, 4-year, or 5-year basis’’; and 

12 (B) by inserting ‘‘, 4-year, or 5-year’’ after 

13 ‘‘on a 3-year’’. 

14 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN LAN15 GUAGES PROGRAM. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 816(e) of the Native 

17 American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992d(e)) is 

18 amended by striking ‘‘2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012’’ 

19 and inserting ‘‘2016 through 2020’’. 

20 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 816 of the 

21 Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 

22 2992d) is amended in subsections (a) and (b) by striking 

23 ‘‘subsection (e)’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘sub24 section (d)’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021458EN.01000701.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 458/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 458/7

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1965, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1959 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela

(2021/C 458/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1965 (2), and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1959 (4) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of designated persons, has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 and Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela. The grounds for the listing of the persons concerned appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 9 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered, before 30 July 2022, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, in accordance with Article 13 of Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 and Article 17(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2063.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60.

(2)  OJ L 400, 12.11.2021, p. 148.

(3)  OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21.

(4)  OJ L 400, 12.11.2021, p. 1.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 94-5958
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JESSE LEWIS HAGANS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-249-K) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: February 16, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse Lewis Hagans, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Mason Thomas, Jr.,Stephen S. Zimmerman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jesse Hagans, proceeding pro se , appeals his convictions for conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1988). Hagans' only briefed issue in this appeal is ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we find no conclusive appearance of ineffective assistancefrom the trial record, we conclude that Hagans must initiate a habeas corpus proceeding in the district court if he wishes to pursue this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988); see also United States v. Fisher , 477 F.2d 300, 302 (4th Cir. 1973) (providing exception that where ineffective representation conclusively appears in trial record, claim may be raised on direct appeal). Having disposed of Hagans' ineffective assistance claim, we reviewed the entire record, including both pre-trial motions and sentencing, for reversible error. Although not technically before this Court, we have paid special attention to the errors alleged by Hagans' counsel before his withdrawal. Our review has revealed no reversible error. Further, we hold that the evidence supports Hagans' conviction and that the district court correctly calculatedhis sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction and sentence. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED