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








Exhibit 4(o)




STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION


AMENDMENT NO. 8
TO THE
1991 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE
AND
DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLAN


The 1991 Employee Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended pursuant to the following provisions:


		
	1.
	Definitions: For the purposes of the Plan and this amendment, all capitalized terms used in this amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan. 


		
	2.
	Shares Subject to the Plan: As of May 8, 2015, the total number of common shares available for sale under the Plan was 3,650,000. In order to increase the number of common shares, without par value, available for sale under the Plan, the first sentence of Section VI of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


The total number of shares to be available under Section IX of the Plan is 3,950,000 common shares, without par value, of the Company (“Stock”) which may be authorized but unissued shares or issued shares reacquired by the Company and held as treasury shares. 
		
	3.
	Effective Dates; Construction: The effective date of this amendment is May 10, 2019; and this amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control. Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change. 


This amendment shall be submitted to the Company’s shareholders for their approval as soon as practicable but in no event later than 12 months after this amendment has been adopted by the Company’s board of directors. If this amendment is not approved by the Company’s shareholders within such 12-month period, this amendment shall automatically become null and void and have no further force or effect, and the Plan shall continue in effect without this amendment.
STATE v. LANGLEY

No. COA04-1028

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 3, 2005.

Certification Date May 23, 2005.

Appeal from the Pitt (03CRS56615).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Criminal No. 21-0090 (PLF)

)

NATHANIEL J. DEGRAVE, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The defendant in this case, Nathaniel J. DeGrave, and the defendant in Criminal 

No. 21-0088, Ronald L. Sandlin, are charged with engaging in concerted activity as described by 

the government and the same video evidence is relevant to both proceedings. For whatever 

reason, the government chose not to charge them in the same indictment so that these two 

defendants would be before the same judge. In view of that fact and of the asserted relative 

culpability of these two defendants, the Court thinks it appropriate for a decision on pretrial 

detention with respect to Mr. Sandlin to be rendered prior to a decision with respect to Mr. 

DeGrave. The Court therefore will vacate the detention hearing currently set for April 2, 2021 

at 10:00 a.m. and will reschedule the hearing as soon as practicable following a ruling by Judge 

Friedrich concerning pretrial detention of Mr. Sandlin in Criminal No. 21-0088. 

For the reasons described herein, it is in the interests of justice to continue to toll 

the running of the Speedy Trial Act for a reasonable time until the detention hearing is 

rescheduled. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In addition, this period of time is properly excluded 

under the Speedy Trial Act as the time from the filing of a pretrial motion through the conclusion 

of the hearing on such motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D). It therefore is hereby
2

ORDERED that the detention hearing previously scheduled for April 2, 2021

at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that a new date for the detention hearing in this case will 

be set after Judge Friedrich rules on Mr. Sandlin’s Motion to Lift Preventive Detention in 

Criminal No. 21-0088; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that in the interests of justice and because a pretrial 

motion is pending, the time from April 2, 2021 through and including the date of the rescheduled 

detention hearing is excluded from the Speedy Trial Act computation.

SO ORDERED.

____/s/____________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: April 1, 2021
Don Nell HAWKINS, Petitioner, v. Patricia A. GAUGHAN.

No. 18-9122.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
ASHFORD v. WAL-MART STORES.

No. COA04-129.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 15, 2005.

Certification Date April 4, 2005.

Appeal from the NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 970639).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Benjamin L. DOYLE.

No. 402P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2004.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

James M. Bell, for Benjamin L. Doyle.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 1st day of June 2004 for Writ of Supersedeas and Motion for Temporary Stay of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this matter, the following order was entered *561and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of June 2004."
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To  the  Board  of  Directors
New  York  Health  Care,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries



We  consent  to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form  S-3/A  (No.  333-108761)  and  S-8 filed on September 11, 2003 of New York
Health  Care,  Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  of our report dated April 11, 2005, with
respect  to  the  consolidated  balance  sheet of New York Health Care, Inc. and
Subsidiaries  as  of  December  31,  2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year ended
December  31,  2004  and  2003,  which  report appears in the December 31, 2004,
annual  report  on  Form  10-K  of  New York Health Care, Inc. and Subsidiaries.




                                                      Weiser LLP


New York,  New  York
April  11,  2005


<PAGE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 24 , 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00754- CR NO. 14- 18 -00755- CR

LARESHA LEONARD, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1550735 & 1550736

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery

. On October 17 , 2018, the trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial in both cases. The State has not appealed the grant of new trial.
Generally, we only have jurisdiction to consider appeals by a criminal defendant in which there has been judgments of conviction. Courson v. State , 9962

S.W.2d 348, 349 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. dism’ d)

. Because appellant has been granted new trials, there are no final convictions to appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain. Do Not Publis h

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
----

----

| ·   | fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·   | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                      /s/ Robert E. Cauley                     |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                               |
|   | Robert      E. Cauley                                              |
|   |                                                               |
|   | Chairman      of the Board of Directors and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|   |                                                               |
|   | May      7, 2010                                                   |
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Alan LILLIE, Sr.

No. 275P01-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th day of December 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of DAIRY FRESH FARMS INC. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
      Harrison, Chief Executive 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:





(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 result of operations of the Company.


By
              /s/
                Robert HarrisonRobert
                HarrisonPresident,
                    Chief Executive Officer Date:
              May 15, 2007
STATE v. THOMPSON

No. COA04-652

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed January 18, 2005

Certification Date February 7, 2005

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5062 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lambda-cyhalothrin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2008 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lambda-cyhalothrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LAMBDA-CYHALOTHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 1 alpha(S*), 3 alpha(Z)-(+)- 

cyano(3- 

phenoxphenyl)methyl3-(2- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2- 

dimenthylcylcopropanecarboxylate (Lambda-cyhalothrin) 

(CAS No. 91465–08–6) 

(provided for in subheading 

2926.90.30) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5062 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

CHARLTON VAUGHN, a/k/a Money, 

a/k/a Lil’ Money, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 14-1275 

(D.C. No. 1:12-CR-00048-WJM-12) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 After accepting a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal, 

Charlton Vaughn pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine or 

base cocaine. Notwithstanding the appeal waiver, he filed a pro se notice of appeal 

and counsel was appointed to represent Mr. Vaughn on appeal. The government has 

moved to enforce the waiver. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th 

Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). The government has also filed a motion to keep 

 

* This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 21, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

Mr. Vaughn’s plea agreement, attached as an exhibit to the motion to enforce, under 

seal. 

 Mr. Vaughn’s lawyer has filed a response to the government’s motion to 

enforce in which he states that “Appellant Vaughn has no objection to the 

Government’s Motion to Enforce An Appeal Waiver.” Resp. at 2. Moreover, 

Mr. Vaughn does not object to the motion to seal. 

 The motion to enforce is granted and this matter is dismissed. We also grant 

the government’s motion to file Mr. Vaughn’s plea agreement under seal. 

 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam
STATE of North Carolina v. David BALDWIN.

No. 619P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State.

William E. Wood, Whiteville, for Baldwin.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by the Attorney General on the 26th day of November 2003 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Superior Court, Columbus County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to Superior Court, Columbus County:

> "Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by the Attorney General on the 2nd day of December 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Columbus County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4857 

To limit liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 for service station dealers with 

respect to the release or threatened release of recycled oil. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2007 

Mr. CAPUANO (for himself, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. CLAY, Mr. 

DOYLE, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. MCGOVERN, 

Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. TIAHRT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 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 limit liability under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 for 

service station dealers with respect to the release or 

threatened release of recycled oil. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

4 Section 114(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental 

5 Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4857 IH

1 U.S.C. 9614(c)) is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(5) PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE DATE.—No person 

4 (including the United States or any State) may re5 cover, under the authority of subsection (a)(3) or (4) 

6 of section 107, from a service station dealer for any 

7 response costs or damages resulting from a release 

8 or threatened release of recycled oil, or use the au9 thority of section 106 against a service station deal10 er other than a person described in subsection (a)(1) 

11 or (2) of section 107, with respect to any period be12 tween November 8, 1986, and the effective date de13 scribed in paragraph (4), if the service station dealer 

14 had complied with all applicable laws and regula15 tions relating to the disposal of such oil.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Shahram SHAKOURI, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, et al.

No. 19-5841

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5101 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the phasein 

of the deduction for domestic production activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2008 

Mr. MANZULLO (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. HERGER, and 

Mr. FORTENBERRY) 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 accelerate 

the phasein of the deduction for domestic production 

activities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACCELERATING THE PHASEIN OF DOMESTIC 

4 PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 199 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance 

7 of deduction) is amended to read as follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5101 IH

1 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—There shall be 

2 allowed as a deduction an amount equal to 9 percent of 

3 the lesser of— 

4 ‘‘(1) the qualified production activities income 

5 of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or 

6 ‘‘(2) taxable income (determined without regard 

7 to this section) for the taxable year.’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of 

9 section 199(d) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘sub10 section (a)(1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(2)’’ 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13(a)-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: June 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ LAWRENCE CLAYTON, JR.Lawrence Clayton, Jr.,Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report dated September 24, 2004, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report ofProsoftTraining on Form 10-K for the years ended July 31, 2004 and 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the registration statements of ProsoftTraining on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-40982, 333-30336, 333-35249,333-28993, 333-11247, 333-53000, 333-57764, 333-64196, 333-76984 and 333-119339) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-19477, 333-67425, 333-51360, 333-53472 and 333-81310). 

 

/s/    GRANT THORNTONLLP         

 

Phoenix, Arizona 

September 24, 2004
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Hospira, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Terrence C. Kearney, Senior Vice President,Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

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

 
| /s/  Terrence C. Kearney   |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Terrence C.  Kearney            |
| Senior Vice  President, Finance |
| and Chief  Financial Officer    |
| November 10,  2004              |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hospira, Inc.and will be retained by Hospira, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6140** 

SENTELLUS MCDONALD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
SGT. NICHOLSON , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever, III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:13

- ct

- 03061

- D )

Submitted : March 27 , 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sentellus McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Sentellus McDonald seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
as fri volous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) and, alternatively, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the ent ry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket

on September 19, 2013 . The notice of appeal was filed , at the earliest, on J anuary 21, 2014

. * Because McDonald failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal p eriod, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

* Although an inmate’s notice of appeal ordinarily is deemed filed on the date he delivered it to prison authorities for mailing to the court, Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), McDonald’s notice of appeal does not indicate the date on which this ac t occurred

. We conclude, however, that the notice of appeal can be deemed filed no earlier than January 21, the date McDonald signed the document.3 oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Dewayne BARNES, Petitioner v. SENTRY MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.

No. 19-6325

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

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