alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.1







KADANT INC. RESTORATION PLAN







Amendments Regarding Plan Benefit Formula












Kadant Inc. DBA Kadant Solutions Division, the Sponsoring Employer of the Kadant Inc. Restoration Plan (the "Plan"), hereby amends the above-titled Plan as follows:



	
1.

	
The first sentence of Article 1 is amended to reflect the name change of the Qualified Plan to the Kadant Inc. Retirement Plan, so that as amended the first sentence shall read as follows:







Kadant Inc. (the "Company") maintains this Restoration Plan (the "Plan") to provide supplemental retirement benefits which cannot be provided under the Kadant Inc. Retirement Plan (the "Qualified Plan") and to thereby retain and motivate the Company's eligible senior executives.



	
2.

	
The following Section 5.1 is amended in its entirety, effective January 1, 2014, to read as follows:







Amount of Plan Benefit.  A Participant who becomes vested pursuant to Article 6 shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit that is the Actuarial Equivalent lump sum, calculated as of the payment date provided in Section 5.3, of the difference between (a) and (b), where:



	
a.

	
single life annuity payable at the Participant's Normal Retirement Date or, if later, at the Participant's Separation from Service, determined under the provisions of Section 3.1 of the Qualified Plan, but (i) substituting the Participant's Total Compensation determined under this Plan for the Participant's "Compensation" determined under the Qualified Plan, (ii) ignoring any limitations under Code section 415 or 401(a)(17), (iii) taking into account only Total Compensation and service through the date the Participant's participation in the Plan is terminated, and (iv) ignoring any maximum Years of Benefit Service or limitations of Years of Benefit Service in excess of 25 as applied in Section 3.1(c) of the Qualified Plan until the later of the Participant's Normal Retirement Date and the Participant's attainment of 30 Years of Benefit Service.  Upon the later of Normal Retirement Date and 30 Years of Benefit Service, the Participant shall cease to accrue future Years of Benefit Service; and








	
b.

	
the Participant's Qualified Plan Benefit.







 


In WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned adopts this Amendment as the Sponsoring Employer this 20th day of May, 2014.







KADANT INC.







By:            /s/ Eric T. Langevin  


Eric T. Langevin


Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
# C_2009032EN.01003102.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/31

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-290/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark METRONIA - Earlier national figurative trade mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Riera Blanco, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1315/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metronia, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1315/2006-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1315/2006-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG;

| 3. | Orders Metronia SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Metronia SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND AS OF
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000919601
<NAME> VENDALUX CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,278
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1274
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,373)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
In the MATTER OF: J.A.M.

No. 7PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Johnson, Jasmine.

Christopher C. Peace, Attorney at Law, Keith S. Smith, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Mecklenburg County DSS.

Caroline P. Mackie, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for GAL.

Jacob E. Setzer, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Moses, Travis.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of January 2017 by Petitioner 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 8th of June 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).
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20119

Conference Calendar

__________________

DARRELL LENARD BATES,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-5241

- - - - - - - - - -

June 25, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darrell Lenard Bates, Texas inmate #530855, appeals the

dismissal for frivolousness of his civil rights complaint

concerning the impact of the federal detainer placed on him while

he serves his state sentence. We find no abuse of discretion by

the district court for dismissing the complaint as frivolous.

Bates' request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
No. 96-20119

-2-

This appeal is frivolous and therefore is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2. During the pendency of the instant appeal,

this court warned Bates about filing frivolous appeals and

cautioned him to review any pending appeals for frivolousness. 

Bates v. Long, No. 95-11213, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 16,

1996) (unpublished). He did not move to dismiss the instant

appeal. Accordingly, Bates is BARRED from filing any pro se, in

forma pauperis (IFP), civil appeal in this court, or any pro se,

IFP, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this

court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a

judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks

of all federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to

return to Bates, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent

with this bar.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATE
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David
      J. Poston, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)          The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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


/s/ David
              J.
              PostonDavid
                J. Poston
              Vice
                President and Chief Financial Officer
              March
                29, 2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32 to the Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-K or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
No. WR-75,795-04

\ In The

Court of Criminal Appeals

Austin, Texas COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

JAN 2 3 2015

Ex Parte §

Randolph Lee Nobles § The State ofAggft&gosta,Clerk

vs. §

From Appeal No. WR-75,795-04

Trial Cause No. 10-03-048-CRW-D

Wilson County

Motion for Extension of Time to File

Petition for Discretionary Review

To The Honorable Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Comes now, Randolph Lee Nobles, Petitioner, and files this

Motion for an Extension of 25 days in which to file a Petition

for Discretionary Review. In support of this motion, Appellant

shows the Court the following:

I.

The Petitioner was convicted in the 218th District Court at

Wilson County, Texas, of the offense of Arson in Cause No.

10-03-00048-CRW-D, styled State of Texas vs. Randolph Lee Nobles.

The Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, 4th Supreme

Judicial District. The case was affirmed on December 17, 2014.

II.

The present deadline for filing the Petition for Discretion1.
ary Review is January 17, 2015. Petitioner timely requested an

extension of time prior to this request on January 5, 2015, but

was rejected for not being presented in proper form. Petitioner

is illiterate and amends this Motion for Extension of Time and

resubmits it. Petitioner prays the Court will accept it even

though it is now untimely. Petition for Discretionary Review has

already been sent to the Court as of January 21, 2015. Petitioner

had requested extension to January 31, 2015, and now requests

subsequent amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition

for Discretionary Review be until February 10, 2015, since the

Petition has been sent and may be returned prior to this motion

being granted.

Prayer

Wherefore, Petitioner prays this Court grant this motion and

extend the deadline for filing the Petition for Discretionary

Review in Case No. WR-75,795-04 to February 10, 2015.

Randolph Lee/ftobles

Petitioner, Pro Se

TDCJ-ID No. 01686000

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and

foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for

Discretionary Review has been forwarded by U. S. Mail, postage

paid, First Class, to the Attorney for State, Rena Pena, at

1327 3rd St, Floresville, Texas 78114, on this the 22 day of

January, 2015.

'lA^

Randolph Lee Nobles

Petitioner, Pro Se

TDCJ-ID No. 01686000

2.
Certification

I, Randolph Lee Nobles, TDCJ-ID No. 01686000, being presently

incarcerated in the Sanders Estes Unit of TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Private Facility, in Johnson County, Texas,

verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief .

Executed on this the 22 day of January, 2015.

Randolph Lee Nobles

Petitioner, Pro Se

TDCJ-ID N6. 01686000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7156

ROY L. SMITH, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

MS REDFEARN MILLER, Grievance Officer at Evans CI, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(9:07-cv-01774-HFF) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Roy L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, JOHN E. 

JAMES II LAW OFFICE, Winnsboro, South Carolina; Lucy Grey Wilson 

McIver, LEE, ERTER, WILSON, JAMES, HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Roy L. Smith appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Smith v. Miller, No. 9:07-cv-01774-HFF (D.S.C. June 16, 2008). 

We deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.22

                    AMENDMENT TO THE BENEFIT RESTORATION PLAN
                    OF THE DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, FSB



                     Effective December 20, 2000, the Benefit Restoration Plan
of The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (the "Plan") is amended as follows:

1.       The third textual sentence of Section 1.20 of the Plan is amended in
its entirety to provide as follows:

           "An action in violation of certain trading restrictions with respect
           to Bank Stock or any other employer securities imposed from time to
           time by Dime Bancorp, Inc, or the Bank shall be deemed to be
           prohibited by the Section 16 Rules solely for the purposes of the
           Plan."

2.         Section 3.2(k) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to provide as
follows:

           "(k) Securities Law Limitations. Notwithstanding anything in the Plan
           to the contrary, if at any time a Participant who is an Insider is
           prohibited by the Section 16 Rules from directing that his or her
           401(k) Plan Restoration Account be (i) deemed invested in an
           Investment Fund that invests in Bank Stock or any other employer
           securities, (ii) deemed transferred to a deemed investment in Bank
           Stock or any other employer securities, or (iii) to the extent of any
           deemed investment in Bank Stock or any other employer securities held
           in such account, deemed redeemed for whatever reason, any such
           direction shall be disregarded and not given effect."
STATE of North Carolina v. Sulyaman Alisla WASALAAM.

No. 435P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 29, 2015.

Sulyaman Alislam Wasalaam, for Wasalaam, Sulyaman Alisla.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 28th of December 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Scotland County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of December 2015."
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Executive Officer & Principal Financial Officer

I, Taras Chebountchak, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of FC Financial Services Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and 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 maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee 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 internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: April 12, 2005 | /s/ Taras Chebountchak                              
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|                     | Taras Chebountchak                                  
|                     | President, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
|                     | Financial Officer