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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3667 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase by 10 percentage 

points the required State match for certain newly eligible individuals 

under the Medicaid program and to apply savings against sequestration 

reductions otherwise required, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2013 

Mr. HARRIS (for himself, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. RIGELL, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. 

CASSIDY, Mr. FLEMING, and Mr. BURGESS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase 

by 10 percentage points the required State match for 

certain newly eligible individuals under the Medicaid program and to apply savings against sequestration reductions otherwise required, 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, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3667 IH

1 SECTION 1. 10 PERCENTAGE POINT INCREASE IN STATE 

2 MATCHING FOR NEWLY ELIGIBLE MEDICAID 

3 BENEFICIARIES. 

4 Subparagraphs (A) through (E) of section 1905(y)(1) 

5 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(y)(1)) are 

6 amended by striking ‘‘100 percent’’, ‘‘95 percent’’, ‘‘94 

7 percent’’, ‘‘93 percent’’, and ‘‘90 percent’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘90 percent’’, ‘‘85 percent’’, ‘‘84 percent’’, ‘‘83 percent’’, 

9 and ‘‘80 percent’’, respectively. 

10 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF SAVINGS AGAINST SEQUESTRA11 TION. 

12 The Director of the Office of Management and Budg13 et is authorized and directed to increase the discretionary 

14 spending limit under section 251(c) of the Balanced Budg15 et and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for the se16 curity category by $20,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 

17 and then to increase the security and the nonsecurity cat18 egories for that fiscal year each by half of the remaining 

19 estimated reduction in new budget authority resulting 

20 from the enactment of section 1. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.5



Exhibit 4.5




Form of Amendment of Registration Rights Agreement




This amendment (the “Amendment”), is effective as of July 16, 2014 and is entered into by and between FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Bond Street Holdings LLC), a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and each Holder.




WHEREAS, the Company and the Holders entered into that certain Registration Rights Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on August 13, 2010, November 12, 2010 or November 15, 2010, as applicable; 




WHEREAS, the Company has obtained the consents of the Holders beneficially owning not less than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding Registrable Interests in accordance with Section 9(a) of the Original Agreement; and




WHEREAS, the Company and each Holder wishes to amend the Original Agreement as contemplated below.




NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and each Holder hereby agrees as follows:




Section 2(a) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended by substituting “ninety (90)” for “forty five (45)” therein.




Section 2(b)(iv)(b) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended by substituting “ninety (90)” for “forty five (45)” therein.




Except as amended hereby, the Original Agreement shall continue to be and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms, and nothing in this Amendment shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of noncompliance by the Company or the Recipient with respect to any other term or provision of the Original Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Original Agreement. This Amendment may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement.




[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first set forth above.




			
	 
	FCB FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.


	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:

	 

	 
	 
	Name: Vincent Tese


	 
	 
	Title: Executive Chairman


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	HOLDER


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	Print name of Holder


	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:

	 

	 
	 
	Name:


	 
	 
	Title:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,James S.J. Manuso, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of SuperGen, Inc.  

| Dated: March 16, 2007 | By:    |  /s/ JAMES  S.J. MANUSO          |   |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Name:  | James S.J. Manuso                     |   |
|                  | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

I,Michael Molkentin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of SuperGen, Inc.  

| Dated: March 16, 2007 | By:    |  /s/ MICHAEL  MOLKENTIN |   |
|-----------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Name:  | Michael Molkentin            |   |
|                  | Title: | Chief Financial Officer      |

 

*A signed original of this written statementrequired by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrantand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.*

*This certificationaccompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, (whether made before or afterthe date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.*

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID R. MANSET,

Appellant,

v.

BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-0703

[May 4, 2023]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings 

and the School Board of Broward County; L.T. Case No. DOAH20-

3492TTS.

Robert F. McKee and Brittany M. Fox of Robert F. McKee, P.A. Tampa, 

for appellant.

Elizabeth W. Neiberger and Denise M. Heekin of Bryan Miller Olive P.A., 

Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Terrance Jennings, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 21, 2016

**90ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 8, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4, **91IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable G. Thomas Cooper, Jr. be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Cooper shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Cooper shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT


Exhibit 10.5




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT is made as of the 25th day of June, 2013, by and among ISGM Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“ISGM”), TBG Holdings Corporation, a Florida corporation (“TBG”), Neil Swartz, Tim Hart, Larry Coe and John Marino Sr. (collectively, the “Management Team”), Transportation Management Services, Inc. (“TMS”) and John Marino Jr. 




R E C I T A L S




WHEREAS, the parties are parties to that certain Agreement dated June 25, 2013 (the “Original Agreement”) and wish to amend certain terms of the Original Agreement as hereinafter set forth.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:




1.

Forgiveness of Debt.  Section 2.2 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the amount of debt to be forgiven by TBG is $31,000.




2.

Business Advisory Fees.  Article III of the Original Agreement is hereby amended to add the following Section:




Section 3.3

Cash Advisory Fees.  As additional compensation for the Advisory Services, TBG shall be compensated as follows:




Ÿ

$25,000 for the first month, and

Ÿ

$10,000 for each month thereafter during the term of the Agreement.




3.

Definitions; No Other Changes.  All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement.  Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.




TBG Holdings Corporation




By: /s/ Tim  Hart

Tim Hart, CEO




MANAGEMENT TEAM

IGSM Group, Inc.




/s/ Neil Swartz

By: /s/ Harmon Francis Fytton

Neil Swartz

Harmon Francis Fytton, CEO




/s/ Tim Hart

Transportation Management Services, Inc.

Tim Hart

By: /s/ John Marino, Jr.

/s/ John Marino, Sr.

John Marino, Jr.

John Marino, Sr.

/s/ John Marino, Jr.

/s/ Larry Coe

John Marino, Jr.

Larry Coe
STATE v. Tae Kwon HAMMONDS

389A15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 7, 2017

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hammonds, Tae Kwon.

Joseph E. Elder, Assistant Attorney General, Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

John R. Rittelmeyer, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Disability Rights North Carolina, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of April 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of April 2017."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 21st day of April 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
In the Matter of W.P.B., B.D.J., A.G.J., B.J.J.

No. COA15-818.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
- 606 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S 296 N ebraska R eport STATE v . ARTIS Cite as 296 Neb. 606



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### .

T

areik 

### Q. A rtis 

### , appella ___ N.W.2d ___
Filed May 5, 2017. No. S-16-464.

suppleme n tal opi n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: L or 

### A

. M aret 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinio modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Robert Wm. Chapin, Jr., for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Sarah E. Marfisi, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee.

H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., W right 

### , M iller



### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , K el c h 

### , and F u n ke 

### ,

P er 

### C uriam 

### Case No. S-16-464 is before this court on the appel

lee’s motion for rehearing concerning our opinion in State v. Artis

. 1 

### We overrule the motion, but we modify the original opinion as follows: In the section entitled “V. ANALYSIS,” under subheading “ 2. P lai n 

### E rror 

### ,” subsection “(a) Arti Sentence Is Indeterminate,” we withdraw the third and fourth sentences of the single paragraph of that subsection, which now reads:

1 State v. Artis, ante p. 172, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2017). Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 07/28/2017 09:10 AM CDT- 607 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S 296 N ebraska R eport STATE v . ARTIS Cite as 296 Neb. 606



### (a) Artis’ Sentence

Is Indeterminate [9-12] The State has mischaracterized Artis’ sentence of “not less than 2 years, nor more than 2 years” as a determinate sentence. A determinate sentence is imposed when the defendant is sentenced to a single term of years, such as a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment. See State v. White , 256 Neb. 536, 590 N.W.2d 863 (1999). In contrast, when imposing an indeterminate sentence, a sentencing court ordinarily articulates either a minimum term and maximum term or a range of time for which a defendant is to be incarcerated. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Reissue 2016); State v. White, supra . In Nebraska, the fact that the minimum term and maximum term of a sentence are the same does not affect the sentence’s status as an indeter

minate sentence. See, State v. Marrs , 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (2006); State v. Urbano , 256 Neb. 194, 589 N.W.2d 144 (1999). Thus, we conclude that Artis’ sen

tence for his Class IV felony is an indeterminate sentence in which the minimum and maximum terms are the same. Such sentence complies with L.B. 1094’s requirement that the court impose an indeterminate sentence for a Class IV felony when that sentence is imposed consecutively with a Class IIA felony, and we therefore find no plain error in this regard. 2 

### The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modif 

### M otio n for reheari n g overru

2 Id. at 179-80, ___ N.W.2d at ___.
State of North Carolina v. Thomas Antwan Lucas

No. COA16-73

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136677 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136677 

 COA: 277006 

Oakland CC: 05-206081-FH 

SHAWN HENRY WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
Acts Retirement-Life Communities, Inc. v. Town of Columbus, North Carolina

No. 334PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Ryan D. Bolick, Attorney at Law, Virginia M. Wooten, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Town of Columbus, North Carolina.

Benjamin R. Sullivan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for ACTS Retirement-Life Communities, Inc.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of September 2016 by Plaintiff 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
John T. TURCHIN and Susan Turchin v. ENBE, LLC

No. 306P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 12, 2016.

Mr. Tyler R. Moffatt, Attorney at Law, For Turchin, John A., et al.

Mr. Phillip E. Lewis, Mr. Christopher Thomas Hood, Attorneys at Law, For ENBE, LLC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of August 2016 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 8th of December 2016."
William S. Crawford, Plaintiff, v. Matthew Nawrath, Defendant.

Matthew Nawrath, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. The Lettie M. Franks Revocable Living Trust Agreement, Third-Party Defendant.

No. COA15-955

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# C_2012138EN.01003901.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/39

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2011 — Van Arum v Parliament

(Case F-138/07) (1)

(2012/C 138/91)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008, p. 48.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Victor Jay CRISCO, Jr.

No. 377P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Gilda C. Rodriguez, for Crisco, Victor Jay Jr.

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Victor J. Crisco, for Crisco, Victor Jay Jr.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th of November 2015 by Defendant 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 28th of January 2016."
Exhibit 10.1


 



Amendment No. 2


to the


Split-Dollar Agreement












The Split-Dollar Agreement, effective November 10, 2008 (the “Agreement”), is hereby amended as follows:








		1.	Section 1 is hereby amended and restated as follows:










“1.                  Insurance Policy







“The Bank shall purchase the Policy from the Insurer and shall be the sole and absolute owner of the Policy.  The sole purpose of this Agreement is to provide a death benefit payable on the death of the Employee during the term of this Agreement.  The parties agree that the Policy shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and of the endorsement to the Policy filed with the Insurer to implement the provisions of this Agreement.  The Bank may exercise all ownership rights granted to the owner of the Policy by the terms thereof, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.  The Bank shall be the direct beneficiary of the total death proceeds, less (a) $4,000,000 should the Employee die before his sixtieth (60th) birthday, (b) $2,500,000 should the Employee die on or after his sixtieth (60th) birthday or (c) $750,000 if the Employee is a member of the Board of the Bank but no longer an employee of the Bank at the time of his death (the “Bank’s Interest in the Policy”).  The Bank will keep possession of the Policy.  The Bank agrees to make the Policy available at reasonable times to the Trustee or the Insurer for the purpose of endorsing or filing any change of beneficiary on the Policy for the portion of the death proceeds that is in excess of the Bank’s Interest in the Policy, but the Policy shall thereafter be promptly returned to the Bank.  Any indebtedness of the Policy will first be deducted from the proceeds payable to the Bank.  Also, any collateral assignment made by the Bank will be deducted from the proceeds payable to it.”


 








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Split-Dollar Agreement to be executed on the date set forth below.


 


NBT BANCORP INC.












	
July 28, 2014

		
By:

	/s/ F. Sheldon Prentice
	
Date

			
Duly Authorized Officer of NBT Bancorp Inc.





 




  



NBT Bank, N.A., as Trustee









	
July 28, 2014

		
By:

	/s/ F. Sheldon Prentice
	
Date

			
Duly Authorized Officer of NBT Bank, N.A.
State v. Michael Eugene Reed, II

232P01-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Mr. Michael Eugene Reed, II, for Reed, Michael Eugene II.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. David Learner, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Hudson, J. recused
TAYLOR v. LEWIS

301P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 2, 2016

Michael Anthony Taylor, for Taylor, Michael Anthony.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of August 2016 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of September 2016."