alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit No. 99.2


Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (1350, I, the undersigned Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Journal Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended June 15, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Paul M. Bonaiuto
-------------------------------
Paul M. Bonaiuto
July 23, 2003


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


                                       29
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BOBBY O. FOSTER, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-47, CA-97-428-3-P)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby O. Foster, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgment is marked as “filed”

on June 1, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on June 3, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we take the date

that the judgment was entered on the docket sheet as the effective

date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806

F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Foster, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Foster, Nos. CR-93-47;

CA-97-428-3-P (W.D.N.C. June 3, 1998).* 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.

DISMISSED
#### ROBERT VICTOR ESQUIVEL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11014

October 8, 1980

617 P.2d 587

*Mills, Galliher, Lukens, Gibson, Schwartzer & Shinehouse,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; and *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant Esquivel was convicted of the infamous crime against nature after a jury trial. The primary issue presented at *778the jury trial was appellant’s credibility. This issue was particularly important since appellant predicated his sole defense on his testimony of the consent of the alleged victim who gave the only testimonial evidence against the defendant. The prosecution, however, impeached Esquivel, over defense objections, with statements Esquivel had made to a psychiatrist during a court-ordered mental examination. We believe that admission of these statements was error as a subject being examined by a court appointed physician should feel free in such a clinical climate to discuss all the facts relevant to the examination without the guarded fear that the statements may be later used against him.1 Fair play dictates nothing less. Mann v. State, 96 Nev. 62, 605 P.2d 209 (1980); *see also*Williamson v. State, 330 So.2d 272 (Miss. 1976). Here the principal issue in the case was Esquivel’s credibility; the damaging evidence introduced to impeach his own testimony was garnered during Esquivel’s mental examination. We may not deem the evidence harmless error under the factual posture presented and must therefore reverse and remand the case to the district court for a new trial.

1

There is no question in this case of an assertion of privilege with respect to such statements when the report of a court-ordered examination is used for the purpose for which it was ordered. NRS 49.245(2). Here, the statements were used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, after appellant’s guilty plea, which was the reason for the psychiatric examination, was withdrawn as involuntary.
#### WARD v. CLAYTON, COMR. OF REVENUE

No. 18 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 53.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 29 August 1969.
#### GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ORDER SONS OF ITALY IN AMERICA, PROSECUTOR, v. SIMON BLUM, COLLECTOR OF REVENUE OF THE TOWN OF NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted February 1, 1932

Decided June 13, 1932.

Before Justices Trenchard and Donges.

For the prosecutor, *T. Mancusi-TJngaro (Herbert A. Ku*vin, of counsel).

No brief or other argument was submitted for the defendant-

Per Curiam.

This writ of *certiorari*brings up for review an assessment: of taxes for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 against-block No. 522, lot No. 1, property of the prosecutor, and also a tax sale of the property so assessed for the year 1925..

The uncontroverted proofs show that (1) on July 29th,. 1920, the prosecutor was duly incorporated in accordance with the law of the State of New Jersey as an association for non-pecuniary benefit, and among its objects was to establish, an orphan asylum for children of its members; (2) that it erected and completed prior to December 19th,' 1924, the’ asylum building on the land in question owned by it not exceeding five acres; (3) that in December, 1924, orphans were-admitted to the asylum; (4) that the land and building and: the effects therein were used for no other purpose than an orphanage; (5) that the lands and buildings and the orphans are maintained from revenue derived from yearly assessments. *759of the members of the prosecutor and by donations from such members; (6) that no revenue is obtained from the lands and buildings or the orphans; (7) that during the years 1924 to 1929, both included, the lands and buildings were used for no other purpose than an orphanage; (8) that during the year 1924 the property was assessed by the town, but upon application duly made on the ground of exemption, the assessment was remitted and canceled; (9) that the prosecutor had no information of any further assessment until July, 1931, when it learned that the property was sold for nonpayment of taxes for the year 1925, and also learned of the assessments for the years 1926 to 1929, both inclusive; (10) that the property of the prosecutor was sold for taxes for the year 1925 to the town of ISTutley; that no other interests are involved.

We think it plain that under section 208-66D (203) *(Cum. Supp. Comp. Stat., p.*3483), the several assessments as well as the tax sale should be set aside, but without costs, and it is so ordered.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.6

AMENDMENT #2
TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT #2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is effective as of April 1, 2021, by and between BALDWIN RISK PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and Bradford L. Hale (“Employee”).  


BACKGROUND


The Company employs Employee pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between the Company and Employee (the “Employment Agreement”), which became effective as of the IPO Closing Date (as defined in the Employment Agreement), as amended by that certain Amendment #1, effective as of March 23, 2020 (“Amendment #1” and together with the Employment Agreement, the “Amended Employment Agreement”). 


The Company and Employee desire to amend the Amended Employment Agreement on the terms set forth herein effective as of the date first written above.  


OPERATIVE TERMS


    The parties agree as follows:


1.Section 2(a) of the Amended Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:
“During the Employment Period, Employee shall serve as Chief Financial Officer of the Company and PubCo, and shall have those powers and duties normally and customarily associated with his position in entities comparable to the Company and PubCo and such other powers and duties as may be reasonably prescribed by the Company or PubCo, subject to the power and authority of each of the Company or PubCo to modify such duties, responsibilities, functions and authority from time to time in its sole discretion.”
2.Section 2(b) of the Amended Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:
“During the Employment Period, Employee shall report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and PubCo, positions which are currently held by Trevor Baldwin or other person as determined by the Company or PubCo from time to time, and shall devote his best efforts and his full business time and attention (except for permitted vacation periods and reasonable periods of illness or other incapacity) to the business and affairs of PubCo, the Company and their current and future, direct and indirect, subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures and other related entities (the “Company Group”).”
3.Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Amended Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


[Signature Page Follows]











The parties hereto have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first written above.


COMPANY


BALDWIN RISK PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 




By: /s/ Trevor Baldwin            
Name: Trevor Baldwin
Title: Chief Executive Officer




EMPLOYEE




/s/ Bradford L. Hale                  
Name: Bradford L. Hale    




Signature page to Amendment #2 to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement - Hale
# C_2007177EN.01000101.xml

| 31.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4743 — Warburg Pincus/Bausch)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 177/01)

On 20 July 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4743. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4743. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Memphis, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0697

Issued: June 1, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On April 18, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from an October 12, 2022 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0697.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the October 12, 2022 decision was April 10, 2023. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until April 18, 2023, more than 180 days after the

October 12, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0697 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0697, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0697 is dismissed.

Issued: June 1, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Albany, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0562

Issued: September 5, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 1, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 4, 2023 merit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-0562.

In a letter dated June 23, 2023 and received August 7, 2023, appellant requested that the 

appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 23-0562 is dismissed.

Issued: September 5, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67772-67773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22171]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 8, 2005. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments

[[Page 67773]]

promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance 
Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#743015021d102b261b07001f1106341b19165a111b045a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e0a2f38272a111c213d3a252b3c0e21232c602b213e60292138">[email protected]</span></a>, fax number 202-395-7285 Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#315b50524044545d585f541f4659584554714253501f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="553f3436242030393c3b307b223d3c2130152637347b323a23">[email protected]</span></a> (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: ``8(a) Annual Update''.
    Form No: 1450.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: 8(a) Program Participants.
    Annual Responses: 7,258.
    Annual Burden: 14,516.

Jacqueline K. White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 05-22171 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of River Rock Entertainment Authority (the “Authority”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned officers does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to suchofficers knowledge:

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

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Authority.
| By:       | /s/ NORMAN RUNYAN                                                                                                            |   |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|      | Norman Runyan                                                                                                                |   |
|      | Chief Operations  Officer (Acting Chief Executive Officer for the period covered by the  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q) |   |
|      | May 22,  2006                                                                                                           |   |
|      |                                                                                                                         |
| By:  | /s/ HANS WINKLER                                                                                                             |   |
|      | Hans Winkler                                                                                                                 |   |
|      | Acting Chief  Financial Officer                                                                                              |   |
|      | May 22,  2006                                                                                                           |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the River Rock Entertainment Authorityand will be retained by the River Rock Entertainment Authority and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### SHARON MADGE WALLIS, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11198

December 7, 1978

587 P.2d 37

*730
      *Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Thomas L. Leen,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Steven J. Parsons,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Sharon Madge Wallis filed a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the portion of an indictment which charged her with the sale of a controlled substance on May 4, 1978, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Habeas was denied and in this appeal Wallis contends the district judge committed reversible error. We agree.

The only evidence in the record that purports to connect Wallis with the charged crime is that on May 4, 1978, she was in the company of Lewis Jackson Wallis (her husband) and another man when an undercover narcotic agent allegedly met with and received from Lewis Jackson Wallis a quantity of phencyclidine (PCP), a controlled substance.

Although the evidence regarding appellant’s association with the two men may constitute some transgression of the law, we deem such evidence insufficient to support a charge of attempted sale. Accordingly, the district judge should have granted the habeas challenge to the count of the indictment which charged Sharon Madge Wallis with that crime. *See*Palombo v. Sheriff, 93 Nev. 492, 568 P.2d 580 (1977). *See also*Ursino v. Sheriff, 91 Nev. 409, 537 P.2d 316 (1975).

Reversed.
* The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States Di strict Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0609n.06 Filed: July 19, 2005 No. 04-3419 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

GRADUAL TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CHERYL HART, Defendant-Appellant, CITY OF CINCINNATI POLICE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges; GWIN, *District Judge.
PER CURIAM. Finding that Gradual Taylor, proceeding pro se, sufficiently alleged facts—arrest and prosecution without probable cau se based on the purposeful and malicious filing of a false police report—that, when viewed in a light most favorable to him, make out a Fourth Amendment violation by Officer Hart and obviate her entitlement to qualified immunity (regardless of the fine contours of such a claim in this circuit at the time of the maliciously false report), we affirm the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.