alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Charles Eugene WATTS.

No. 449P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 22, 2005.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Watts.

Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of August 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed pending the determination of the State's Petition for Discretionary Review by order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of August 2005."
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 MICHAEL MARTINEZ,

3 Worker-Appellant,

4 v. NO. A-1-CA-36537

5 CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, LLC and AIG,

6 Employer/Insurer-Appellees,

7 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION

8 Leonard J. Padilla, Workers’ Compensation Judge

9 Gene N. Chavez

10 Albuquerque, NM

11 for Appellant

12 Hoffman Kelley Lopez, LLP

13 Dorielle Paull

14 Albuquerque, NM

15 for Appellees

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 VIGIL, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} AFFIRMED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 _______________________________

7 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 ___________________________________

10 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

11 _________________________________

12 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge
IN RE JORDAN.

No. COA05-336.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 20, 2005.

Certification Date January 9, 2006.

Appeal from Franklin (04SP138)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Robert M. MAYO, Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, Respondent.

No. 164A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 7, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 168 N.C.App. 503, 608 S.E.2d 116 (2005), affirming in part and reversing in part an order entered on 13 November 2003 by Judge Donald W. Stephens in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 September 2005.

Young Moore and Henderson P.A., by Christopher A. Page, Raleigh, for petitioner-appellee.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Q. Shanté Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed August 26, 2013.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 01061
- CR No. 05
- 13
- 01062
- CR GONZALO CHAVEZ JR., APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F01
- 75915
- Q , F01
- 75916
- Q


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, an d Lang

- Miers Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal s . Appellant’s counsel has approved
the motion. Th e Court GRANTS the m otion and ORDERS th at th e appeal s be DISMISSED
and this decision be certified below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47
131061F.U05
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,908
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,877
<ALLOWANCES>                                       616
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         437,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,526
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 400,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        248,120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   400,983
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,553
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (44)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (284)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  16,369
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81


</TABLE>
### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80294 (303) 844-3157 Patrick J. Fisher, Jr. Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk Chief Deputy Clerk November 8, 1996
TO: All recipients of the captioned order and judgment RE: 96-1072 Lyons v. Claar October 21, 1996 Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: Inadvertently, the hard copy of the order and judgment was stamped with the incorrect filed date (October 22, 1996). The correct filed date is October 21, 1996. Please make the appropriate correction. Very truly yours, Patrick Fisher, Clerk

Susan Tidwell Deputy ClerkNo. 96-1072, Lyons v. Claar

Attachment not available electronically.* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 10/21/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH C. LYONS Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. NARD CLAAR; JOSE VEGA; BECKY ROMANO; JERRY KIMBREL, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-1072 (D.C. No. 95-S-2785) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Mr. Lyons is a pro se litigant and a state inmate. The trial court dismissed Mr. Lyons' complaint as frivolous and Mr. Lyons app eals. Mr. Lyons sued four prison officials alleging they transfered him from a higher paying prison job to a lower paying prison j ob. He asked for restoration of his previous job, back pay and bonuses, and an inju nction to prevent any retaliation. The district court, in a well reasoned opinion, con cluded the claims should be dismissed as frivolous. Mr. Lyons appeals this decision. Mr. Lyons' brief is not persuasive and is based upon a misunderstanding of the law. The basi c premise of Mr. Lyons' brief is that somehow he has a constitutional right to hi s former job. This simply is not the case. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth in the order of the districtcourt, a copy of which is attached.

Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
ASAD v. ASAD

No. COA05-592

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Wilson (98CVD2090).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
dvn-ex102_661.htm



Exhibit 10.2

Amendment 2019-1
to the
Devon Energy Corporation
supplemental contribution Plan

The Devon Energy Corporation Supplemental Contribution Plan (the "Plan") is amended, effective as of July 1, 2019, as follows: 

1.Section 4.1 of the Plan ("Company Contributions") is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

"4.1Company Contributions.  The Company Contribution for a Plan Year (or other applicable determination period) will be equal to the amount of Company contributions that would have otherwise been allocated to the Participant under the Qualified Plan but for the application of Section 415 of the Code.  Further, a Participant shall only be eligible to receive Company Contributions under this Plan for a Plan Year (or other applicable determination period) if and to the extent that the Participant satisfies the eligibility requirements (including, without limitation, the requirement to be employed by the Company as of a specified date or dates) to receive a Company contribution under the Qualified Plan for such period."

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]



 

DB1/ 104659869.2

 
 


 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Devon Energy Corporation (acting through its authorized delegate) has caused this Amendment 2019-1 to the Plan to be executed this 19th day of June,  2019.  

DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION

 

By:_ /s/ Tana K. Cashion
Name:  Tana K. Cashion
Title:  Senior Vice President, Human Resources



 
[Signature Page to Amendment 2019-1 to the Devon Energy Corporation Supplemental Contribution Plan]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5135 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5135

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 13, 2008

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 201 West Greenway Street in Derby, Kansas, as the ``Sergeant Jamie 
                   O. Maugans Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT JAMIE O. MAUGANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 West Greenway Street in Derby, Kansas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant Jamie O. Maugans Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Jamie O. Maugans Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 12, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5454 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5454

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of 
service connection of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for purposes of the 
        laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2008

    Mr. Brown of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Price of North 
  Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of 
service connection of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for purposes of the 
        laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL 
              SCLEROSIS.

    Section 1112(a) is amended by inserting after paragraph (5) the 
following new paragraph:
            ``(6) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis developing a 10 percent 
        degree of disability or more at any time;''.
                                 <all>
```
Jean Hill GREENE, Adrienne M. Brown and Janettarose L. Greene v. Maritza HICKS, individually and Maritza Hicks, Executrix and the Estate of Vivian Lenora Burt.

No. 247P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

George Ligon, Jr., Raleigh, for Jean Hill Greene, et al.

Kenneth C. Haywood, Raleigh, for Maritza Hicks.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of May 2005 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 6th day of October 2005."
Eunice C. ECKARD, Executrix of the Estate of Steven Vincent Eckard, Deceased, and State of North Carolina, ex rel. Eunice C. Eckard, Executrix of the Estate of Steven Vincent Eckard, Deceased v. Chanae Evon SMITH, Mark Stephen McCollum, Steve Wallace, Phillip H. Redmond, Sheriff of Iredell County, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, and Iredell County.

No. 573A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 7, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 166 N.C.App. 312, 603 S.E.2d 134 (2004), affirming orders entered on 5 June 2001 by Judge Sanford L. Steelman, Jr. and on 17 April 2002 by Judge Mark E. Klass in Superior Court, Iredell County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 September 2005.

Wilson, Lackey & Rohr, P.C., by David S. Lackey, Lenoir, for plaintiff-appellant Eckard.

Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P., by F. Fincher Jarrell and Wayne P. Huckel, Charlotte, for defendant-appellees McCollum, Wallace, Redmond, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, and Iredell County.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit










AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), dated as of December 17, 2018, by and among Ameris Bancorp, a Georgia corporation, Ameris Bank, a Georgia banking corporation, and H. Palmer Proctor, Jr. (“Executive”) is executed as of June 30, 2019.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, this Amendment is being entered into in connection with the consummation of the merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2018, by and between Ameris Bancorp and Fidelity Southern Corporation (the “Merger Agreement”) and Executive’s appointment as Chief Executive Officer of Ameris Bancorp and Chief Executive Officer of Ameris Bank.
NOW, THEREFORE, Ameris Bancorp, Ameris Bank and Executive, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:
1.Effectiveness.  This Amendment shall become effective upon the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement).  In the event that the Merger Agreement is terminated prior to the Effective Time, this Agreement shall be null and void ab initio.  Except as expressly set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
2.Amendment to Section 1(b).  Section 1(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:
(b)    During the Employment Period, Executive shall serve as Chief Executive Officer of Ameris Bancorp and Chief Executive Officer of Ameris Bank and as a member of the Boards of Directors of Ameris Bancorp and Ameris Bank.  In such positions, Executive shall have duties and authority commensurate with the chief executive officer of a publicly-held bank.  Executive shall report to the Boards of Directors of Ameris Bancorp and Ameris Bank.
3.    Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be deemed to be made in, and in all respects shall be interpreted, construed and governed by and in accordance with the laws of, the State of Georgia, excluding its conflicts of laws.
4.    Written Instrument; Amendment.  The parties acknowledge that this Amendment is a written instrument and that by their signatures below they are agreeing to the terms and conditions contained in this Amendment.
5.    [Signature page follows]


1










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
AMERIS BANCORP
		
	By:
	        /s/ Daniel B. Jeter             
Name:  Daniel B. Jeter 
Title:  Chairman    




AMERIS BANK
		
	By:
	        /s/ Daniel B. Jeter             
Name:  Daniel B. Jeter 
Title:  Chairman    




H. PALMER PROCTOR, JR.
  /s/ H. Palmer Proctor, Jr.     



 Signature Page to Amendment to Employment Agreement (Proctor)
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            MARINE EXPLORATION, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the annual report on Form
10-K/A of Marine Exploration, Inc. for the period ending June 30, 2009:

(1)  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
     aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Marine
     Exploration, Inc.



/s/ Mark Goldberg
--------------------------
Mark Goldberg
Chief Executive Officer
September 28, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Marine Exploration, Inc. and
will be retained by Marine Exploration, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.



<PAGE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-41176 Summary Calendar

ERNEST D. NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LARRY A. JOHNS, Warden, Michael Unit; MICHAEL L. STARKEY, Assistant Warden, Michael Unit; ROBERT D. HERRERA, Michael Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:00-CV-288

-------------------- May 10, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ernest D. Newman, Texas prisoner # 560787, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to prosecute or to obey a court order. Newman has failed to brief the relevant issue, as he has provided neither argument nor authorities to show that the district court erred in dismissing his suit. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P.No. 00-41176 -2- 28(a)(9). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal of a frivolous appeal constitutes one strike against Newman for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Newman has already accumulated one other strike in this court. See Newman v. Brock , No. 00-40959 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2001). Once Newman accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. SANCTIONS
WARNING ISSUED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Form****10-Q) of Citizens Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (the “Company”), I, Joseph D. Borgerding, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,****hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ Joseph D. Borgerding | Date: August 14, 2008 |
|--------|--------------------------|-----------------------|

|   | Joseph D. Borgerding |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
YOUNG (Lindquist) v. YOUNG.

No. 213A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 16, 2005.

Harold Lee Boughman, Jr., Fayetteville, for Steven Paul Young.

*293Dale S. Morrison, Charlotte, for Nona Young.

Nancy L. Grace, for Alvin & Sharon Young.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of May 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Steven Paul Young) shall have up to and including the 13th day of June 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of May 2005."