alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT ONE
                                     TO THE
                            SCOTTISH RE GROUP LIMITED
                     2004 EQUITY INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

     The Board of Directors of Scottish Re Group Limited has amended the 2004
Equity Incentive Compensation Plan (the "Plan") as follows:


1.   Paragraph 6 of the Plan, subparagraph (e), is amended in its entirety to
     read as follows:

          Each grant shall specify the required period or periods (if any) of
     continuous service by the Participant with the Company or any Subsidiary
     and/or any other conditions to be satisfied before the Stock Options or
     installments thereof shall become exercisable, and any grant may provide
     for the earlier exercise of the Stock Options in the event of a Change in
     Control of the Company or in the event of any other similar transaction or
     event. Unless otherwise provided in the Participant's Award Agreement,
     Stock Options shall become exercisable in three equal annual installments,
     commencing on the first anniversary of the Date of Grant.


     All provisions of the Plan not specifically mentioned in this Amendment
shall be considered modified to the extent necessary to be consistent with the
changes made in this Amendment.
EXHIBIT 99.1  [SUPERIOR TELECOM INC. LETTERHEAD] [SUPERIOR TELECOM INC. LOGO]  April 1, 2002  Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, DC 20549  Re: Letter responsive to Temporary Note 3T to
Article 3 of Regulation S-X  Dear Sir or Madam:  In compliance with Temporary Note 3T to
Article 3 of Regulation S-X, I am writing to inform you that Arthur Andersen
LLP (Andersen) has represented to Superior TeleCom Inc. (the Company) that
Andersens audit of the consolidated balance sheets of the Company and its
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the
three years ended December 31, 2001, was subject to Andersens quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards and that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel
working on the audit, availability of national office consultation and
availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the
relevant portions of the audit.  Sincerely,  /s/ David S. AldridgeChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, James H. Long, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of INX Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 8, 2007  /s/ JAMES H. LONG   James H. Long, Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THEODORE HOWZE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00184-GCM; 3:98-cr-00299-GCM-1)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 21, 2010

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Howze, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Theodore Howze, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Howze has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
HENSLEY v. ASHLAND, INC.

No. COA05-833

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #262983, I.C. #263001).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. John Scott BADGETT.

No. 522A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 7, 2006.

John H. Watters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of February 2006 by Defendant to Amend Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 7th day of February 2006."
EXHIBIT 99.5

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick J. Goodman,  Vice President and Treasurer of MidAmerican Funding, LLC
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarterly
     period  ended  March  31,  2003  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
     requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
     1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:   May 12, 2003





                             /s/ Patrick J. Goodman
                             ----------------------------
                             Patrick J. Goodman
                             Vice President and Treasurer
                             (chief financial officer)



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  MidAmerican  Funding,  LLC and  will be  retained  by  MidAmerican
Funding,  LLC and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

 Submitted December 19, 2008∗

Decided January 5, 2009

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER , Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 07-3295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID E. MALONE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 05 CR 107

Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge.

Order

We vacated Malone’s conviction for money laundering and remanded so that the 

district court could consider whether this affected Malone’s sentence on the remaining 

counts. United States v. Malone, 484 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2007). The district court held that it 

 

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

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07-3295 Page 2

does not and left all of the remaining sentences in place.

Malone contends, in this successive appeal, that the judge violated the Due 

Process Clause by resentencing him without a hearing at which he could provide 

evidence of his rehabilitation while in prison. There are two problems with this 

argument. First, it was waived. The district judge asked Malone whether he wanted a 

hearing; Malone replied that he did not. Second, the judge did not “resentence” Malone. 

The judge set aside the sentence on the vacated count and left the remaining sentences 

as is. A conclusion that a sentence imposed in 2006 should not be disturbed in 2008 does 

not require a hearing.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50136 Summary Calendar

RHONDY JAMES DAVIS, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. E. LABERNEUER; CAPTAIN L. BROWN; L. GLATT; SERGEANT L. JOHNSON , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:14

- CV

- 835

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rhondy James Davis, Sr., Texas prisoner # 1934352, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 compla int as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S. C. § 1915(e)(2). He also moves for appointed counsel. We must examine the basis of our own jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional

* 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 se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 3, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-50136 Document: 00513532979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2016No. 15

- 50136

2 requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Davis’s appeal is not timely for several reasons

. Because Davis’s notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days from the December 17, 2014, entry of the order denying his first m otion to substantiate his claims, it is untimely as to both the district court’s judgment of dismissal and its denial of Davis’s first postjudgment motion

. See Charles L.M. v.
Northeast Ind ep . Sch. Dist ., 884 F.2d 869, 870

- 71 (5th Cir. 1989) ; F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a)(1)(A) , (a)(4)(A), (a)(5)(A) . Given the absence of a timely notice of appeal in this case, this appeal must be dismissed as to the original judgment and the
December 17 order for lack of jurisdiction. See Bowles , 551 U.S. at 214

. Davis’s notice of appeal indicates that it is from a subsequent order (Docket No. 19) entered January 9, 2015, in which the district court barred Davis from filing anything further in the case besides a notice of appeal. As to that order, the notice of appeal appears t o have been timely mailed under FRAP 25(a)(2)(c). 1 H owever, Davis failed to brief any alleged error in this order, so any such error is deemed abandoned. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222,
224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). APPEAL DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part

. MOTION DENIED.

1 Although Davis did not state expressly when he placed the notice of appeal (filed on February 13, 2015) , dated January 25, 2015, in the prison mail system, the accompanying envelope bears a postmark of February 3, 2015, which would make it timely. Case: 15-50136 Document: 00513532979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2016
In re SMS, a minor child EMS, a minor child. appealed by Mother.

No. 90P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Robert W. Ewing, Winston-Salem, for Melinda Kaye Bailey.

Bradley K. Greenway, Rutherfordton, for Rutherford County DSS.

K. Stacie Corbett, Charlotte, for Guardian Ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of February 2006 by Respondent (Mother) 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 29th day of June 2006."
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 17

- 00664

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A .D.J., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA01781

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED March 21, 2018.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
**Exhibit 10.50**

**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO**

**M-FOODS HOLDINGS, INC.**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED 2003 STOCK OPTION PLAN**

WHEREAS, M-Foods Holdings, Inc. (the “**Company**”) desires to amend its Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Option Plan (the “**Plan**”); and 

WHEREAS, this Amendment No. 1 has been approved by the Board of Directors of the Company. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 7(a) of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as of April 9, 2008 as follows: 

1. Section 4 of the Plan shall be amended by deleting the number 32,277 in the third line thereof and replacing it with 31,707. 

2. Section 6(d) of the Plan shall be amended by deleting the second sentence thereof in its entirety and replacing it with the following sentence:“Unless otherwise provided in the applicable Award Agreement, if, for any reason, a Participant is terminated from employment by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, all unvested Options shall be cancelled.”
STATE v. Eddie Lamar TAYLOR.

No. 719A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 2, 2006.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Taylor.

William Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of May 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Prepare and Deliver Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 4th day of June 2006 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of May 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. James A. BRYANT, Jr.

No. 147P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

James Bryant, Jr., Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, William David McFadyen, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 14th day of March 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari, the following order was entered:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
Caroline D'AQUISTO, Employee v. MISSION ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH SYSTEM, Employer, Cambridge Integrated Services, Servicing Agent.

No. 415PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2006.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 171 N.C.App. 216, 614 S.E.2d 583 (2005), affirming an opinion and award filed on 20 May 2004 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 April 2006.

The Sumwalt Law Firm, by Vernon Sumwalt, Charlotte, and Ganly & Ramer, PLLC, by Thomas F. Ramer, Asheville, for plaintiff-appellee.

Van Winkle Buck Wall Starnes & Davis, PA, by Allan R. Tarleton, Asheville, for defendant-appellant Mission St. Joseph's Health System.

PER CURIAM.

As to whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the imposition of sanctions against defendant under N.C.G.S. § 97-88.1, we hold that based upon the specific facts of this case, defendant's defense of plaintiff's claims was not without reasonable grounds. We further conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.

Thus we reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals opinion affirming the imposition of sanctions and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for remand to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.
STATE v. Dane LOCKLEAR, Jr.

No. 578A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 18, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of September 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Investigate and Prepare Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 14th day of November 2006 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of September 2006."
HomeNews30 Days of the Ocean 2015 Photo Contest

# #30DaysofOcean

# 2015 Photo Contest: Recreation Category

The following are winning entries in the **Recreation** category of our  2015 World Ocean Day photo contest. Please note that we may use any of the approximately 400 photos we received for this contest on our website and in other NOS publications. We will provide credit to photographers whenever we use any of the photos.  We would like to thank all who participated.

## Pier in a Storm

From the photographer: "This photo was taken on May 9, 2015 as tropical storm Ana approached. This is the Oceana Pier in Atlantic Beach, North Carolina. I think the guy in the foreground was catching some zzz’s and not fish." Credit: Gladys Buzzell

## Avid Seashell Collector

A seashell collector displays her favorite shell at St. Petersburg, Florida beach. Credit: Taylor Crawford

## Surprised Kayakers

From the photographer: "Kayakers are surprised and delighted by a lunge-feeding humpback whale just offshore at Moss Landing (California). We had an exceptional year of marine mammals in the bay. Anchovies were plentiful, and so were the species that prey upon them. Whale watching from the beach became the norm as bait balls moved into the shallows." Credit: Douglas Croft

## Serenity

Two women standing in the surf at sunset (location: Dunedin, Florida). Credit: Terri Dahl Thomas

## Sticking a Landing

An unidentified surfer attempts to land on his board at Surfers Point in Ventura, California in October 2013. Credit: Jeff Tregembo

30 Days of the Ocean

###### 2015 Photo Contest **Winning Entries**

          -  Coastal and Marine Places
          -  Ocean Life
          -   YOU ARE HERE: Recreation
          - Working Ocean

** View Images on Instagram

** View Images on Flickr

 2015 World Ocean Day Photo Contest Rules and Guidelines

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 12, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 12, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0095. HAROLD A. TRIP et al. v. RES-GA SEVEN, LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

15A08102