alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5366 September Term, 2021 1: 20-c v -003 25-UNA Filed O n: Sep tem ber 2 3, 2 021 Garry David Gallardo , App ellant
v . Dona ld J. T rump , Presid entof the United Sta tes, et a l., App ellees

ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Pillard, Rao , an d Ja ckson, Circuit Jud ges

J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court's o rders f iled March 9 a nd April 22 , 20 20, be af

f irmed . T he district cou rt did noterr in d ismissing ap pellan t’s com plaintan d civil actio n co ncern ing his crimina l convictions a nd clem ency pet itions, nor d id th e co urt a buse its discret ion in de nying his m otion to alter o r am end the judgme nt. Se e, e .g., Yelv ington v. Preside ntial P ardo n &Pa role Attorne ys, 21 1 F.2 d 642 , 64 3-44 (D.C. Cir. 195 4) ("T he pard onin g power is ... expressly vest[ed] in th e Preside nt” a nd “shou ld ... be f ree o f judicial co ntrol, even to the limite d e xten t he re prop osed .”); Clark v . Mem olo, 174 F.2d 97 8, 9 80 (194 9) (“It is well sett led t hatthe Declarato ry

Jud gmen t Actdo es n ot co nfer or e xten d jurisdictio n o v er an area no t alread y covered, nor ca n it b e u sed to giv e relief indirect ly

w hich co uld n ot b e giv en directly.”) ; W illiams v. Hill , 74 F.3d 13 39, 13 40-4 1 (D.C. Cir. 19 96) (pe r curiam ) (holding tha t ratio nale of

Heck v. Hum phre y , 51 2 U.S . 47 7 (19 94), app lies to Biv ens claims and tha t pla intif

f m ay not re cover dam ages for "h arm cause d b y actio ns whose u nlawfu lness would rend er [h is] con v iction o r sent ence invalid" u nless h is conviction o r sent ence ha s bee n se t asid e).

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5366 September Term, 2021
Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

2
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements No. 333-56212, 333-32223,333-11883, 33-35549, 33-35719, 33-72502, Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 2-97542,Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration StatementNo. 2-78926, and Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 toRegistration Statement No. 2-78925 on Form S-8 of ourreports dated February 21, 2002 (March 11, 2002 as toNote 7), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Thoratec Corporation for the year ended December 29,2001.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
San Francisco, CaliforniaMarch 13, 2002
April 8, 2009



Eric Sauve

Grant Hartford Corporation

619 SW Higgins

Suite O

Missoula, Montana 59803



Dear Eric,


Be advised that Commonwealth Resources L.L.C.  waives the stipulation in the
Option Agreement between Commonwealth Resources L.L.C. and the Grant Hartford Corporation that
requires Grant Hartford Corporation to have an insurance liability policy in effect until Grant
Hartford begins its 2009 Definition Drill Program.


Grant Hartford Corporation has Commonwealth Resources permission to provide
a copy of this letter to the Securities Exchange Commission with the submittal of its S1 application.


Sincerely,


Aaron Charlton

Managing Member

Commonwealth Resources L.L.C.

25 A Street 

Garnet Ghost Town

Drummond, Montana 59832
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7417

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD N. GARRIES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-03-69; CA-04-576)

Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard N. Garries, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richard N. Garries seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garries

has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Morris,

429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not retroactively applicable to

cases on collateral review). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Exhibit 32.2

KINDER MORGAN, INC.

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and



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



|Dated:  August
  1, 2005 |  | /s/ Kimberly J. Allen                                       
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | Kimberly J. Allen
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





---

---
#### STATE v. WILBURN

No. 86.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 140.

petition for writ of certiorari to- North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 May 1974. Motion of Attorney General .to dismiss appeal allowed 8 May 1974.
Exhibit Page 214

POWER OFATTORNEY

Know all men by thesepresents that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appointsJoseph M. Cahill his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and with full power ofsubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and allcapacities, to sign the Form 10-K for the Riggs National Corporation for thefiscal year ending December 31, 2001, and to file the same with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities andExchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full powerand authority to do and perform each and every act and thing required andnecessary to be done in and about the premises, or fully to all intent andpurposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming allthat said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute or substitutes, maylawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.51 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Case 1:06-cv-15117-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14942-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

June 21, 2017

t0614 

# Order

Clerk June 21, 2017

154694

THE GROSSE POINTE LAW FIRM, PC, also

known as LAW OFFICE OF ALAN BROAD, PC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154694

COA: 326312

Macomb CC: 2012

- 005249

- CK

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA,

LLC, ROVER MOTORS OF FARMINGTON

HILLS, LLC, doing business as LAND ROVER

FARMINGTON HILLS, JAGUAR AND LAND

ROVER OF MACOMB, LLC, doing business as

JAGUAR LAND ROVER OF LAKESIDE, and

ELDER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2016

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Case 1:06-cv-14966-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
f;-& 

' * IJ SDC SDW. ! t 

t DOCUR.iE?X i 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 E[EC!'RC::ICi3A'Y T1B.D li 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YoRK I r nm +: I: 

i. -- I i 

---------------------------------- c- 

- X : ,..._..&.---,.,. ___"_., I.d.C_.*.-+.-~-d*-l_ 

IN RE: FOSADLqX PRODUCTS LIABILmTTY : 

LITIGATION 

MDL NO. 17E9 

1 : 06-md- 1789 (JFKj 

X 

This Document Relates to: ORDER 

All actlons 

- X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

Oral argument on Plaintiffs' notior: to compel 

production ~f documents will tdke plat-e at 1O:OG a.m. on 

June 2, 2008 in Court.room 20-C. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

May 21, 2008 

x, 1 JOHN F. KEENAN \ 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03294-JFK Document 26 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 70097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22945]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Boston Harbor Islands Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (PL 92-463) that the Boston Harbor Islands Advisory 
Council will meet on Wednesday, December 7, 2005. The meeting will 
convene at 4 p.m. at the Boston Children's Museum, 300 Congress Street, 
Dewey Room, Boston, MA.
    The Advisory Council was appointed by the Director of National Park 
Service pursuant to Public Law 104-333. The 28 members represent 
business, educational/cultural, community and environmental entities; 
municipalities surrounding Boston Harbor; Boston Harbor advocates; and 
Native American interests. The purpose of the Council is to advise and 
make recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with 
respect to the development and implementation of a management plan and 
the operations of the Boston Harbor Islands national park area.

    The Agenda for this meeting is as follows:

    1. Call to Order, Introductions of Advisory Council members 
present
    2. Review and approval of minutes of the September meeting
    3. Analysis of 5-year Strategic Plan
    4. Preparation for the March Elections
    5. Park Update
    <bullet> Summer Review
    <bullet> Outer Brewster
    1. New Business
    2. Public Comment
    3. Adjourn

    The meeting is open to the public. Further information 
concerning Council meetings may be obtained from the Superintendent, 
Boston Harbor Islands. Interested persons may make oral/written 
presentations to the Council or file written statements. Such 
requests should be made at least seven days prior to the meeting to: 
Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands NRA, 408 Atlantic Avenue, 
Boston, MA, 02110, telephone (617) 223-8669.

    Dated: October 11, 2005.
Bruce Jacobson,
Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands NRA.
[FR Doc. 05-22945 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH EDWIN TATE, JR.

No. 507A82

(Filed 11 January 1983)

APPEAL by the State of North Carolina pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of the Court of Appeals *(Judges Robert Martin*and *Arnold*concurring, *Judge Vaughn*dissenting), reported in 58 N.C. App. 494, 294 S.E. 2d 16 (1982), which granted a new trial to defendant from the judgment entered by *Seay, Judge,*at the 11 May 1981 Criminal Session of FORSYTH Superior Court.

*Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Luden Capone III and Richard L. Kucharski, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.*

*Morrow and Reavis, by John F. Morrow, for appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### BUSHNELL v. BUSHNELL

No. 218 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 348.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 July 1980.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10084

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO ANTONIO MUNOZ-PEREZ, also 

known as Javier Castaneda-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CR-92-1-C

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Antonio Munoz-Perez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Munoz-Perez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have
No. 03-10084

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Munoz-Perez maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the maximum sentence which may be imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Munoz-Perez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### LEASING, INC. v. BROWN

No. 45 PC.

Cases below: 14 N.C. App. 383.

19 N.C. App. 295.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 8 May 1974.
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 3 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 3 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 3 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### TRUST CO. v. MORGAN-SCHULTHEISS and POSTON v. MORGAN-SCHULTHEISS

No. 185 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 406.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 August 1977.
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP Document 10 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 8 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03330-DC Document 5 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 2 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 3 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 4 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 5 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 6 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 7 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 8 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 9 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 10 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 11 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 12 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 13 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 14 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 15 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 14 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 16 of 16
Case 1:06-cv-15004-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.8





 Exhibit 10.8 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into and effective as of this 18th day of December, 2019 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between The Bank of Princeton (“TBOP”) and Daniel O’Donnell (the “Employee”)
(each a “Party,” and together, the “Parties”). 
 WHEREAS, the Employee is employed by TBOP
pursuant to the terms set forth in an employment agreement dated December 6, 2018 (the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS,
in accordance with Section 4(b) of the Agreement, the Employee participates in incentive compensation programs sponsored by TBOP which provide for benefits in the form of TBOP common stock and cash; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the terms of the Agreement as specified herein. 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as
follows: 
 1. Amendment. The first sentence of Section 9(b)(i) of the Agreement is deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following new sentence: 
 “(i) The EMPLOYEE shall receive a lump sum cash payment equal to two
(2) times: (A) the EMPLOYEE’S Annual Salary then in effect, plus (B) the average of the three (3) highest annual cash or stock bonuses paid to the EMPLOYEE under a short-term incentive program maintained by TBOP during the
Term.” 
 2. Severability. Any term or provision of this Amendment that is invalid or unenforceable in any
situation in any jurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or the validity or enforceability of the offending term or provision in any other situation or in any other jurisdiction. 

3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts and by facsimile or electronic means, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original copy, and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties hereto, notwithstanding that all the Parties shall not have signed the same counterpart. 

4. Full Force and Effect. To the extent the terms and conditions of the Agreement are not expressly modified, altered, or
amended by this Amendment, the Parties agree that the terms and conditions will remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the Amendment Effective Date. 
  

					
	 TBOP:
	 		 	EMPLOYEE:
	 The Bank of Princeton
	 		 	Daniel O’Donnell
			
	 By: /s/ Richard Gillespie
	 		 	By: /s/ Daniel O’Donnell
	 Name: Richard Gillespie
	 		 	Name: Daniel O’Donnell


  
 110