alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DOCSNY-266214v01 

Robert J. Higgins, Esq. (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen, Esq. (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman, Esq. (KF-3635) 

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-2714 

(212) 277-6500 

Attorneys for Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 : 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

JUAN JARA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

90 CHURCH STREET 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-05363-AKH 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION 

OF ANSWER 

TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

BY MERRILL LYNCH 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill 

Lynch”), as and for its responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption 

(Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, 

hereby adopts Merrill Lynch’s Answer to Master Complaint, dated August 3, 2007, which was 

filed in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 

MC 102 (AKH). 

Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 9 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
2 

DOCSNY-266214v01 

WHEREFORE, Merrill Lynch demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 September 14, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen 

______________________________________ 

Robert J. Higgins (RH-6477) 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

Kenneth H. Frenchman (KF-3635) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 9 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05421-AKH     Document 4      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 24164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11920]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems 
(1205).
    Date/Time: Wednesday, May 30, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jorn Larsen-Basse, Program Director, Surface 
Engineering and Material Design, Division of Civil and Mechanical 
Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd. Room 545, 
Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 292-8360.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY '01 
Surface Engineering and Material Design Review Panel as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 8, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-11920 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#                                                                         How the Navy builds a livable camp with a real airstrip on a chunk of floating Arctic ice                                                                    

##### by Lt. Seth Koenig, Commandr, Submarine Force Atlantic Public Affairs

07 March 2022U.S. NAVY ICE CAMP QUEENFISH -- 

                220304-N-ON977-1037 BEAUFORT SEA, Arctic Circle (March 4, 2022) – Sailors, Marines and members of Arctic Submarine Laboratory carve a hole into Arctic sea ice using a six-inch auger to prepare for a submarine to breach the ice at Ice Camp Queenfish during Ice Exercise (ICEX) 2022. ICEX 2022 is a three-week exercise that allows the Navy to assess its operational readiness in the Arctic, increase experience in the region, advance understanding of the Arctic environment, and continue to develop relationships with other services, allies, and partner organizations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Alfred Coffield/Released)            

                220304-N-ON977-1037            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Petty Officer 2nd Class Alfred C

VIRIN: 220304-N-ON977-1037

Tags:
**ICEX**CAMP QUEENFISH**ICEX2022**Arctic**FORWARD OPERATING BASE**Undersea Warfighting Development Center**U.S. NATONAL ICE CENTER**Alaska
# C_2009295EN.01001401.xml

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/14

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 26 September 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C.39181 — Candle Waxes (2)

Rapporteur: Latvia

2009/C 295/11

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
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 Amended Annual Report of KnuSaga Corporation ("KnuSaga")
on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending August 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry
Luptak, Vice President, Finance, General Counsel, and Chief Financial Officer of
KnuSaga, certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the
          financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/  Jerry Luptak
---------------------------
     Jerry Luptak
     Chief Financial Officer


November 24, 2004
#### SHERMAN EDWARDS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*David J. Reich,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Jessica Probolus,*special deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided May 17, 2005

The petitioner Sherman Edwards’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 88 Conn. App. 169 (AC 24777), is denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Manuel LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-10134.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2013.

Filed May 28, 2013.

Matthew G. Eltringham, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John D. Kaufmann, Esquire, Law Office of John D. Kaufmann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

*586MEMORANDUM**

Although the Government made a favorable plea offer, defendant Jose Manuel Lopez pleaded guilty without entering into any agreement with the Government, and received a sentence 18 months higher than the one proposed by the Government. As a result of a recording equipment malfunction, no transcript of the change of plea hearing is available. These unusual facts form the basis for defendant’s appeal.

The absence of a transcript or suitable recording of the plea proceedings constitutes a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(g). Contrary to the Government’s assertion, this Rule 11(g) violation is not analyzed under the Court Reporter Act, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 753(b), but rather is subject to harmless error review. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(h). Under a harmless error analysis, the Government bears the burden of establishing that the Rule 11 transgression had no effect on defendant’s substantial rights. *E.g., United States v. Jimenez-Dominguez,*296 F.3d 863, 866 (9th Cir.2002). The Government has not satisfied this burden.

Absent a verbatim recording of the plea proceedings, it is not possible to assess whether the requirements of Rule 11 were met. Contrary to the Government’s contention, the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation are not an adequate substitute for a transcript of the change of plea hearing. The Findings and Recommendation recite some, but not all, of the matters outlined in Rule 11(b), provide no specifics concerning any applicable mandatory minimum or maximum penalties, and indicate that the sentencing guidelines “apply” when, in fact, they are only advisory, *see United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 245, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Given the Government’s inability to demonstrate that the Rule 11(g) violation was harmless, defendant is “entitled to plead anew.” *McCarthy v. United States,*394 U.S. 459, 463, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). We therefore vacate both the judgment and the guilty plea, and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4787

_____________________________

AVA ELECTRIS CANNIE aka Eva 

Helene Cannie,

Appellant,

v.

JACKSONVILLE GOLF AND 

COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, MARSH LANDING

MANAGEMENT CO. and COUNTRY 

CLUB CONCIERGE MAGAZINE,

INC.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Virginia Norton, Judge.

January 7, 2019

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Ava Electris Cannie, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellees.
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1649 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to require cyber certification for small business development center counselors, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1649 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Devel3 opment Center Cyber Training Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DUTIES OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CEN5 TER COUNSELORS. 

6 Section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648) 

7 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(o) CYBER STRATEGY TRAINING FOR SMALL BUSI9 NESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection— 

11 ‘‘(A) the term ‘cyber strategy’ means re12 sources and tactics to assist in planning for cy13 bersecurity and defending against cyber risks 

14 and cyber attacks; and 

15 ‘‘(B) the term ‘lead small business develop16 ment center’ means a small business develop17 ment center that has received a grant from the 

18 Administration. 

19 ‘‘(2) CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.—The Adminis20 trator shall establish a cyber counseling certification 

21 program, or approve a similar existing program, to 

22 certify the employees of lead small business develop23 ment centers to provide cyber planning assistance to 

24 small business concerns. 

25 ‘‘(3) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED EMPLOYEES.— 

26 The Administrator shall ensure that the number of 
3 

•HR 1649 EH

1 employees of each lead small business development 

2 center who are certified in providing cyber planning 

3 assistance under this subsection is not fewer than 

4 the lesser of— 

5 ‘‘(A) 5; or 

6 ‘‘(B) 10 percent of the total number of em7 ployees of the lead small business development 

8 center. 

9 ‘‘(4) CONSIDERATION OF SMALL BUSINESS DE10 VELOPMENT CENTER CYBER STRATEGY.—In car11 rying out this subsection, the Administrator, to the 

12 extent practicable, shall consider any cyber strategy 

13 methods included in the Small Business Develop14 ment Center Cyber Strategy developed under section 

15 1841(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

16 for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 

17 Stat. 2662). 

18 ‘‘(5) REIMBURSEMENT FOR CERTIFICATION.— 

19 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the avail20 ability of appropriations and subparagraph (B), 

21 the Administrator shall reimburse a lead small 

22 business development center for costs relating 

23 to the certification of an employee of the lead 

24 small business development center under the 

25 program established under paragraph (2). 
4 

•HR 1649 EH

1 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—The total amount re2 imbursed by the Administrator under subpara3 graph (A) may not exceed $350,000 in any fis4 cal year.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1649 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to require cyber 

ter counselors, and for other purposes. certification for small business development cen-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rocky Duffy, Also Known as Kim Duffy, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered June 19, 1986, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, we find that preclusion of the identification testimony by the arresting officers was not warranted on the ground that the People failed to give notice of this testimony pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (b). The record reveals that the officers identified the defendant in order to ensure that the correct person had been arrested *(see, People v Morales,*37 NY2d 262, 271). Because the viewing by police was confirmatory, rather than a product of a police-arranged identification procedure, the People were not required to give notice of this prospective identification testimony under CPL 710.30 (1) *(see, People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543; *People v Aponte,*140 AD2d 702).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Holzer,*52 NY2d 947) and, in any event, is devoid of merit. Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ.,.concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH     Document 19      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH     Document 19      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH     Document 19      Filed 09/14/2007     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 13-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 12 of 12
#### ALLEN et al., Respondents, v. DAVIS et al., Respondents, and WHITNEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

March 27, 1894.)

Action by Arthur H. Allen and Mary J. Allen against Lydia C. Davis and another and Edmund C. Whitney.

No opinion. Order appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on opinion of GREEN, J., at special term.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11683]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 
1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding 
dates shown below:
    License Number: 14687N.
    Name: BWT WHSE & DIST., Inc.
    Address: 2451 United Lane, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007.
    Date Revoked: March 29, 2001.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.
    License Number: 4359F.
    Name: Chadwick, Vernon Paul.
    Address: 5915 Hoover Avenue, Indian Trail, NC 28079.
    Date Revoked: October 18, 2000.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.
    License Number: 4207F.
    Name: Cortina & Roth, Inc.
    Address: 8770 SW 72nd Street, #183, Miami, FL 33173.
    Date Revoked: April 4, 2001.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.
    License Number: 3240F.
    Name: Freight Connections International, Ltd.
    Address: 935 175th Street, Homewood, IL 60430.
    Date Revoked: March 24, 2001.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.
    License Number: 16978F.
    Name: International Transportation Services, Inc. d/b/a Itrans.
    Address: 18610 S.E. 24th Street, Vancouver, WA 98683.
    Date Revoked: April 4, 2001.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.
    License Number: 14011F.
    Name: Inverfreight, Inc.
    Address: 5901 NW 151st Street, Suite 102, Miami Lakes, FL 33014.
    Date Revoked: March 23, 2001.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.
    License Number: 3903N.
    Name: Jagro California Inc.
    Address: 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 800, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
    Date Revoked: March 30, 2001.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 01-11683 Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
## Breadcrumb

-  Dakota Water Science Center 

#           Connect        

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Maps 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Software 
-  News 
-    Connect    -  Locations 
  -  Social Media 
-  Partners 
-  About 

The Dakota Water Science Center has offices located across North and South Dakota including Bismarck and Grand Forks in North Dakota and Huron, Pierre, and Rapid City in South Dakota. Our staff have experience in all areas of surface-water and groundwater hydrology including water quality, water availability, water use, and modeling.  Please contact any of our staff with your questions.

Locations

Social Media

## Contacts

#### Eric T Volkman

##### Director, DSWC

South Dakota

evolkman@usgs.gov

605-394-3219

#### Gregory C. Delzer, Ph.D.

##### Deputy Director for Science 

Dakota Water Science Center

gcdelzer@usgs.gov

605-394-3230

#### Karen R Ryberg, Ph.D.

##### Research Statistician

Dakota Water Science Center

kryberg@usgs.gov

701-250-7422

## Employee Directory
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 27, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00301

- CR

IN RE Israel LARA Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Marti nez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On May 13, 2015 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court has

determined that we do not have jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition. The peti tion is

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on May 27, 2015

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on t his 27th day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11

- 1327

- CR, styled The State of Texas v. Israel Lara , pending in the 25th

Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Dwight E. Peschel presiding.
Case 1:07-cv-05727-PKC Document 7 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05727-PKC Document 7 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05727-PKC Document 7 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05347-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT 1 TO THE CONSULTING AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN

COMMUNITY BANK OF THE CHESAPEAKE AND JAMES F. DI MISA


 


This amendment to the Consulting Agreement by and
between Community Bank of the Chesapeake (the “Bank”) and James F. Di Misa (the “Consultant”) is made effective
as of December 19, 2019 (the “Amendment 1”).


 


WHEREAS, the Bank entered into a nine-month
Consulting Agreement with the Consultant dated April 1, 2019 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, Section 1(a) of the Agreement provides
the Bank may extend the term of the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of the Bank reviewed the Agreement and the need for the Consultant's services and elected to extend the Agreement
through December 31, 2020; and


 


WHEREAS, in connection with the extension
through December 31, 2020, the Bank agreed to reduce the Consulting Fee (as such term is defined in the Agreement) to $70,000.


 


NOW, THEREFORE:


 


		1.	Section 2(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to replace the reference to $140,000 with $70,000.



		2.	All other provisions of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.



		3.	The term of the Agreement is extended through December 31, 2020.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has
caused this Amendment 1 to be executed by its duly authorized representative and Consultant has signed this Amendment 1 effective
as of the date first above written.


 


COMMUNITY BANK OF THE CHESAPEAKE


 


	By:	/s/ William J. Pasenelli 	 
	 	William J. Pasenelli


 


 


CONSULTANT


 


	By:	/s/ James F. Di Misa	 
	 	James F. Di Misa