alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.34

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                ACQUISITION AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF SHARE EXCHANGE



     This is Amendment No. 1 to that certain Acquisition Agreement and Plan of
Share Exchange by and among GRAPHIC ARTS CENTER, INC. ("Purchaser"), SHEPARD
POORMAN COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION ("Shepard Poorman"),  ROBERT E. SHEPARD,
ROBERT W. POORMAN, JR. and DAVID E. RICHEY, JR. dated November 6, 1996 (the
"Agreement").

     WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement wish to amend certain provisions of
the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived
herefrom, the parties agree as follows:

     1.  Section 1.1(b) of the Agreement is amended to change the Effective Time
to December 1, 1996.

     2.  Section 11.2(a)(vii) is hereby amended to increase the amount provided
for therein from $1,069,000.00 to $1,169,000.00.

     3.  Shepard Poorman agrees that $50,000 shall be accrued on its books as a
Shareholder's Expense pursuant to Section 12.2 relating to the prepayment of
Debt owed to CIT Group.

     4.  All other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged
and in full force and effect.

     DATED this 2nd day of December, 1996.

                                                PURCHASER

                                                GRAPHIC ARTS CENTER, INC.,
                                                a Delaware corporation


                                                By: ____________________________
                                                Name: __________________________
                                                Title: _________________________
<PAGE>
 
                                PRIMARY SHAREHOLDERS


                                ----------------------------------------
                                Robert W. Poorman, Jr.


                                ----------------------------------------
                                Robert E. Shepard


                                ----------------------------------------
                                David E. Richey, Jr.


                                SHEPARD POORMAN COMMUNICATIONS
                                CORPORATION


                                By: ____________________________________
                                Name: __________________________________
                                Title: _________________________________
Russell OXENDINE, Employee, Plaintiff, v. Briskel LOCKLEAR, Employer, Riverport Insurance Company, Carrier (Berkley Assigned Risk Services, Administrator), Defendants.

No. COA17-259

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
## 252 

# I._
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **GROVER**

**SELLERS ATrORNEY** 

**GENERAL** September 29, 1945 Railroad Commission of Texas Capitol Building Austin, Texas Attentior::

Gus J. Strauss, Director Gas Utilities Division Gentlemen:
Gas Licensee. egislature,Regular . .. .' Y~GENERAL OF TEXAS
Catherine Hudgins HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. Kelly J. THOMAS, Commissioner, N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

No. COA17-474

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

REVERSED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 1352** 

MOUNIR BEN HASSINE ,
Petitioner ,

v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : December 22, 2015 Decided: January 28, 2016

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York, New York , for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin Moresi , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Mounir Ben Hassine, a native and citizen of Tunisia , petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for withholding of removal and pr otection
under the Convention Against Torture. * We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of Ben Hassine’s
merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that
the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of
the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports

the Board’s decision. See Gomis , 571 F.3d at 359 . We further

find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s denial of Ben

Hassine’s motion to re mand or in the immigration judge’s denial

of his motion for a continuance.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. In re: Ben Hassine (B.I.A. Mar. 4,
2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

le gal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

* Ben Hassine does not challenge the denial of his asylum claim as untimely, and in any event, we lack jurisdiction to review this finding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); Gomis v. Holder , 571 F.3d 353, 358

- 59 (4th Cir. 2009).3 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIE D
#### STATE ex rel. Samuel Tyrone JEFFERS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2279.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Jeffers, Samuel Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 156667; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 02 KH 36446.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
#### Linnies G. SPIKES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D03-10.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 30, 2003.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Godfrey, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Roberta G. Mandel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE and GERSTEN, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.

*253PER CURIAM.

Linnies G. Spikes appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.

Defendant-appellant Spikes was convicted of burglary of an unoccupied conveyance and sentenced as a violent career criminal. *See*§ 775.084(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996).* In his motion, the defendant contends that he does not qualify as a violent career criminal because his offense at conviction was burglary of an unoccupied conveyance. He argues that the offense should not be treated as a forcible felony for these purposes.

We have previously rejected this argument. *See Woody v. State,*847 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); *Perez v. State,*840 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); *Rodriguez v. State,*826 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), *rehearing denied with opinion,*837 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA), *review denied,*No. SC03-444, 848 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 2003); *Diaz v. State,*837 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); *Delsol v. State,*837 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Affirmed.

*

 The crime date was November 23, 1997.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CFO OF PERIODIC REPORT**     The undersigned, Mark E. Pape, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofAffirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of his knowledge, that:(1) the Interim Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedMarch 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.     Dated: May 10, 2006      /s/ Mark E. Pape Mark E. Pape    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

NATIONAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION 

SERVICE, Stillwater, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1162

Issued: December 27, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

On May 5, 2017 appellant filed an application for review of a March 2, 2017 Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) decision which denied authorization for lumbar 

fusion surgery.

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a 

decision and must be remanded to OWCP. In the case of William A. Couch,1the Board held that 

when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a 

claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued. Following appellant’s 

request for approval of lumbar surgery, OWCP sent appellant’s physician, Dr. Robert L. 

Remondino, an August 18, 2016 letter requesting that the physician comment on the report of an 

OWCP medical adviser who recommended that the surgery request be denied. It subsequently 

received additional evidence from Dr. Remondino that included May 19 and July 21, 2016 and 

February 20, 2017 reports. These reports were received by OWCP on September 1 and 14, 2016 

and March 1, 2017. In its March 2, 2017 decision, OWCP denied authorization for lumbar 

fusion surgery as appellant provided insufficient medical evidence to support authorization of the 

requested surgery. It noted that, in response to its August 18, 2016 letter, it had “not received 

 

1

41 ECAB 548 (1990).
2

any additional evidence.” OWCP did not note receipt or consideration of the additional reports 

from Dr. Remondino.

The Board finds that OWCP, in its March 2, 2017 decision, did not review the reports 

from Dr. Remondino dated May 19, July 21, 2016 and February 20, 2017. For this reason, the 

case will be remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly consider all the evidence submitted at 

the time of the March 2, 2017 decision. Following such further development as OWCP deems 

necessary, it shall issue an appropriate merit decision on the claim.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 2, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside. The case recorded is remanded to OWCP for 

further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: December 27, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Kenneth Earl ROBINSON v. Erik A. HOOKS N.C.D.P.S. Secretary

No. 200P07-7

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 13, 2017

*578Kenneth Earl Robinson, for Robinson, Kenneth E.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 8th of December 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Halifax County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of December 2017."

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 8th of December 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Halifax County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of December 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of December 2017 by Petitioner to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of December 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Roy MCALLISTER

No. COA17-614

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

NO ERROR IN PART. NO PLAIN ERROR IN PART. DISMISSED IN PART.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

ANTHONY JOSEPH RACO, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 473 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4355 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2014 

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 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, as the 

‘‘Harold George Bennett Post Office’’. 

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


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4355 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. HAROLD GEORGE BENNETT POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 201 B Street in Perryville, Ar4 kansas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Harold 

5 George Bennett Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harold George Ben10 nett Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Kasey Dashawn GARLAND, Defendant.

No. COA17-1097

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 15, 2018

NO ERROR.
#### Ellis REED v. C. Jerome D’AQUILA.

No. 2003-CP-1370.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Reed, Ellis; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, *643Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 55,941-F.

Denied on the showing made.
Steven GRODENSKY, Plaintiff v. Roger MCLENDON, MD, Duke University Health System, Inc. d/b/a Duke University Medical Center, Associated Health Services, Inc., Duke Medicine Global Support Corporation, The Duke University School of Medicine Research Foundation, and Private Diagnostic Clinic, Defendants

No. COA17-1258-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED. REMANDED IN PART.
#### WALKO CORPORATION, Appellant v. BURGER CHEF SYSTEMS, INC., an Indiana Corporation et al.

No. 75-1135.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1977.

*1390Before Mr. Justice TOM CLARK,* Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and ROBINSON and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(d). Mr. Justice Clark participated in the initial opinion in this case but died thereafter and did not participate in this supplemental opinion.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

The District Court dismissed appellant’s diversity action as time-barred because initiated after the three-year period set by the applicable Maryland statute of limitations.1 Before commencing suit, appellants had attempted unsuccessfully to intervene in an earlier action to which the appellees were parties.2 If the running of the statute was tolled for the period during which that motion was pending, the present action would have been timely, but otherwise not.

When the case was first before us, we held that under the *Erie*doctrine3 the question of tolling in these circumstances was to be determined by Maryland law;4 and because we were uncertain as to the state-law principles governing, we certified the question to the Maryland Court of Appeals5 pursuant to a Maryland statute affording us that opportunity.6 The Court of Appeals has now responded with a holding that “the statute of limitations was not suspended during the pendency of the motion to intervene.” 7 The court based this conclusion in large part on policy considerations and the legislative judgment reflected in the statute of limitations,8 thus confirming the wisdom of our decision to leave the question of *1391tolling to the forum more able to identify and evaluate the critical factors.9

The ruling of the Maryland Court of Appeals disposes of the only issue remaining on this appeal after our earlier opinion. Now that we are authoritatively and fully informed on the Maryland law applicable to the situation at bar, the judgment appealed from must be

*Affirmed.*

1

. *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc.,*Civ. No. 74-674 (D.D.C.) (orders of Dec. 13, 1974).

2

. The background of this dispute is elucidated in our earlier opinion, *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc.,*180 U.S.App.D.C. 306, 307-308, 554 F.2d 1165, 1166-1167 (1977).

3

. *Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins,*304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).

4

. *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc., supra*note 2, 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 312-313, 554 F.2d at 1171-1172.

5

. *Id*at 313-314, 554 F.2d at 1172-1173.

6

. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 12-601 (1976).

7

. *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc.,*281 Md. 207, 216, 378 A.2d 1100, 1104 (1977).

8

. *Id*

9

. *Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef Syss., Inc., supra*note 2, 180 U.S.App.D.C. at 312, 554 F.2d at 1171.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of THOMAS PROPERTIES GROUP, INC. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | 
|Dated: May 13, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/  DIANA M. LAING    
|                    |  |  |  | Diana M. Laing         
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration
statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.



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.
STATE v. Dwayne Demont HAIZLIP

345P16-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 30, 2017

James D. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Dwayne Dumont Haizlip, for Haizlip, Dwayne Dumont.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of May 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of May 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
#### Thomas BARONE, et al., Appellants, v. A-1 CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D02-2638.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 6, 2003.

Greenspoon Marder Hirschfeld Rafkin Ross & Berger and Haas A. Hatic and Jason J. Matthes and Cynthia J. Becker, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Dennis R. Bedard, Miami, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, GODERICH and RAMIREZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order under review. This cause, however, is remanded for the sole purpose of amending the amount of the equitable lien awarded to the appellant, Thomas Barone. The amount awarded is to also include the enhancement of the property’s value as a result of the improvements made by Barone.

Remanded.
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy Glen MILLS

No. 526A13-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 30, 2018

Ms. Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Ms. Mary E. McNeill, Raeford, Attorney at Law, for Mills, Timothy Glen

Mr. Ted Bell, District Attorney, for State

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of May 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 30th of May 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 30th of May 2018."