alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exh101Supplemental401kPlanAmend62013v2




EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX
TO THE
REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
SUPPLEMENTAL 401(k) PLAN
Amended and Restated Effective as of April 1, 2008
And Executed December 30, 2008 (the “Plan”)




Regions Financial Corporation hereby amends the Plan effective January 1, 2013, as follows:


1.  Section 3.1 is amended by adding the following subsection (e) to the end thereof.


		
	(e)
	Additional Participants as of January 1, 2013.  Effective January 1, 2013, an Employee who is not otherwise eligible under subsections (a) through (d) above shall be eligible to participate for the following purposes provided the Employee satisfies the following conditions. An Employee is eligible under this subsection as of the first day of a Plan Year if the Employee has Compensation for the prior Plan Year in excess of the dollar limitation in Code Section 401(a)(17), and the employer contribution credited under Section 4.3(b)(iii) hereof (based on Compensation in the prior Plan Year) is not less than $100.  An Employee who is eligible under this subsection shall immediately participate with respect to the employer contribution credited under Section 4.3(b)(iii) hereof, and with respect to the right to execute a  supplemental bonus reduction agreement under Section 4.1(a). An Employee who is eligible under this subsection for any Plan Year shall continue to be eligible to participate in subsequent Plan Years, and with respect to each such subsequent Plan Year, shall be eligible (i) to execute a supplemental salary reduction agreement under Section 4.1(a) before the first day of such subsequent Plan Year, (ii) to be credited with matching contributions under Section 4.2, and (iii) to be credited with employer contributions under Section 4.3(b)(i) and (ii). 




2.  All other terms, provisions and conditions of the Plan not herein amended shall remain in full force and effect.
#### Serena Cipriani, Appellant, v Gregory Green, Esq., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[719 NYS2d 570]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 14, 1999, which, upon the grant of renewal and reargument, granted defendants’ previously denied cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted in light of the absence of any triable issue as to whether defendants committed legal malpractice during their representation of plaintiff in her breast implant litigation *(see, Plentino Realty v Gitomer,*216 AD2d 87, 88). Plaintiff’s primary argument in opposition to summary judgment is that she was damaged because the defendants failed to timely commence a Nevada lawsuit against the corporate parents of the implant manufacturer, Dow Corning. This argument fails because at the time of defendants’ representation, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama had recently rendered a determination holding that none of the States from which the silicone breast implant cases had been transferred permitted suit to be brought against the corporate parents of Dow Corning *(In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Prods. Liability Litig. [MDL 926],*837 F Supp 1128). Moreover, subsequent to defendants’ representation, plaintiff *pro se*brought a lawsuit against Dow’s corporate parents in the District Court for the District of Nevada, which dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit as barred by the applicable two-year Statute of Limitations based upon its finding that the action accrued when plaintiff discovered her injuries from her breast implants in 1978, some 12 or 13 years before any of defendants had been retained. We note that Dow Corning, Inc., the manufacturer of plaintiffs breast implants, was a strong and viable company at the time suit was instituted. An attorney’s “selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice.” *(Rosner v Paley,*65 NY2d 736, 738.) Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
# C_2016274EN.01000101.xml

| 27.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2014-2015 SESSION

Sittings of 20 to 23 October 2014

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 424, 17.12.2015.

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 424, 17.12.2015.

The texts adopted of 23 October 2014 concerning the discharge for the financial year 2012 have been published in OJ L 334, 21.11.2014.

The texts adopted of 23 October 2014 concerning the discharge for the financial year 2012 have been published in OJ L 334, 21.11.2014.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
Andrea MORRELL, G. Pony Morrell, and The Pasta Wench, Inc. v. HARDIN CREEK, INC., John Sidney Greene, and Hardin Creek Timberframe and Millwork, Inc.

No. 318A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

*696Paul A. Capua, Attorney at Law, Boone, Genevieve A. Mente, Attorney at Law, for Morrell, Andrea, et al.

Joseph T. Carruthers, Attorney at Law, Lee D. Denton, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Hardin Creek, Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants on the 20th of September 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendants shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.

Defendants shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
[— NYS2d —]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joyce Dopkeen, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

June 21, 1993

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*George Freeman*for appellant. *Carl Vergari, District Attorney*of Westchester County *(Bruce Kelly*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

The Department of Transportation regulation which prohib*729its the taking of photographs or moving pictures except in a designated parking area or otherwise as authorized by the Department of Transportation is a reasonable exercise of police power and is not an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, either as applied to the defendant herein or by reason of overbreadth *(see, New York State Club Assn. v New York City,*487 US 1; *Branzburg v Hayes,*408 US 665). Moreover, the return, by which this court is bound, gives no basis to disturb any of defendant’s convictions *(see, People v Prior,*4 NY2d 70).

DiPaola, P. J., Collins and Ingrassia, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 10.39
 SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
 Novint Technologies, Inc.
 (a Delaware corporation)
 1




---



##### 



SUBSCRIPTION PROCEDURE
 To Subscribe for Common Stock and Warrants of Novint Technologies, Inc. :
 1.
    
    Date and Fill Inthe amount of Common Stock and Warrants being subscribed to and Complete
and Signthe Subscription Agreement on the applicable Signature Page.
 2.
    
    Faxthe signed Agreement to, and send all signed originals to and form of payment to:
 
 3.
    
    Please make your subscription payment payable to the order of Novint Technologies, Inc.
 4.
    
    Wire Transfer Coordinates, if paying by wire transfer:
 
  2




---



##### 



Novint Technologies, Inc.
 SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
 Subscriber Company
 Securities
  Purchase and Sale of the Common Stock and Warrants
  Purchase
Price
  3




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties of Subscriber
 Act
  SEC
  4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



Representations and Warranties of the Company
    Indemnification
 Registration Rights
 7




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
        
 8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



10




---



##### 



Signature Page for Individuals:
  $Total Principal Amount of Common Stock and Warrants Subscribed to and Purchase Price Thereof
 Print or Type NameSignatureDateSocial Security Number (if applicable)Address
   `
 FORM OF PAYMENT  CHECK OR WIRE TRANSFER




---



##### 



Signature Page for Partnerships, Corporations or Other Entities:
  $Total Principal Amount of Common Stock and Warrants Subscribed to and Purchase Price Thereof
 Print or Type Name of EntityAddressTaxpayer I.D. No. (if applicable)
    
    DateSignature
    
    Print or Type Name and IndicateTitle or Position with Entity
 FORM OF PAYMENT  CHECK OR WIRE TRANSFER




---



##### 



Acceptance by Novint Technologies, Inc.:
 
 Novint Technologies, Inc.By:President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of John George TAKACS. Petition for reinstatement.

No. 174 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 4, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated April 4, 2003, the Petition for Reinstatement is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18946]



[[Page 55629]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Microcontaminant Reduction Venture

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 29, 2005, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Microcontaminant Reduction 
Venture (``MRV'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, one of the parties to MRV, Vulcan Materials Company, 
Birmingham, AL, has ceased manufacturing pentachlorophenol, and MRV has 
terminated.
    On June 13, 2001, MRV filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 19, 
2001 (66 FR 37709).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 8, 
2005. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on July 7, 2005 (70 FR 39338).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-18946 Filed 9-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
In the MATTER OF: M.D.

No. COA17-1198

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
                         May 17, 2010



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyJ. Roe BuckleyExecutive Vice PresidentChief Financial OfficerMewbourne Development Corporation,Managing General Partner of the Registrant
# Official Journal C 374/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 374 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 625 November 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 374

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 625 November 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 374/01 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 1 |
| 2019/C 374/02 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 8 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2019/C 374/01

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

1

2019/C 374/02

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

8

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      J.
      Stewart Asbury III, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Chatsworth Data Solutions, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
      ended April 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Chatsworth Data Solutions,
      Inc.







Date:
                June 12, 2007
            /s/
                J. Stewart Asbury IIIJ.
                Stewart Asbury IIIChief
                Executive Officer and President







I,
      Clayton Woodrum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Chatsworth Data Solutions, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
      ended April 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Chatsworth Data Solutions,
      Inc.







Date:
                June 12, 2007
            /s/
                Clayton WoodrumClayton
                WoodrumChief
                Financial Officer
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 30, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00047

- CR

Vicente SALDANA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 09

- 0169

- CRA Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due July 20, 2015; however, the court has granted

extension s of time to file the brief

. On September 8, we ordered appellant’s retained attorney, Samuel C. Beale, to file the appellant’s brief by October 18, 2015. Our order advised that the

court would no t grant any further extensions absent a motion that demonstrate d extraordinary

circumstances justifying the delay. Our order also advised Beale that i f the brief or a conforming

motion wa s not filed by the date ordered, the appeal would be abated and remand ed to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether appellant or counsel has abandoned the appeal.

A ppellant’s brief has not been filed. However, on October 29, counsel filed a mo tion requesting an additional five days

— until November 3, 2015

— to file the brie f

.

Counsel’s motion states the delay was due in part to his misplacing the appellate record and having difficulty obtaining another copy. The motion also reveals that cou nsel mistakenly

believed the brief was not due until October 29.

We grant the motion and order Samuel C. Beale to electronically file appellant’s brief by November 3, 2015

.

No further extensions of time will be granted. If appellant’s brief is not fil ed by the date ordered, this appeal may be abated for an abandonment hearing and counsel may be ordered to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with this

court’s order to file appellant’s brief._________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WIT NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STOKES v. STOKES

82A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 29, 2018

Rebecca K. Watts, Attorney at Law, Monroe, for Stokes, Bree Rushing.

Kristen Shearin, Attorney at Law, Brione B. Pattison, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Stokes, William Corey (II)

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 28th of March 2018 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of March 2018."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 30th day of April 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Ana S. MEZA, Employee, Plaintiff v. BCR JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC., Employer, The Hartford, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA16-944

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

AFFIRMED.
NUMBER 13-18-00384-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

LANCE TAYLOR, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's seventh motion for extension of time 

to file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on April 17, 2019, and this 

Court has previously granted appellant six extensions; however, current counsel, the 

Honorable Diamond DeLeon, has only been granted one extension for the filing of 

appellant’s brief in this cause. On July 21, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant 
2

the time to file a brief was extended to October 12, 2021 and in all caps explained the 

Court will not grant any further extensions absent new and exigent circumstances. 

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's most recent motion 

for extension of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted in this cause, 

is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's seventh motion for extension of 

time to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor 

upon the delay caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter.

Appellant's seventh motion for extension of time to file the brief is hereby 

GRANTED, and the Honorable Diamond DeLeon, counsel for appellant, is hereby 

ORDERED to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before December 13, 

2021. Further motions for extension of time absent exigent circumstances will not be 

favorably entertained by the Court.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

29th day of October, 2021.
#### The WILDERNESS SOCIETY; Alaska Center for the Environment, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-35266.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Rebecca L. Bernard, Esq., Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kathryn E. Kovacs, Esq., Washington, DC, Bruce M. Landon, AUSA, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.