alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.45
Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Board approved the following resolutions:
     RESOLVED, that (1) the Riggs Executive Managerial Bonus Program (the“Program”) shall be discontinued for the 2004 calendar year and all future yearsand (2) no bonuses shall be paid under the Program with respect to the 2004calendar year or any future years.
     FURTHER RESOLVED, the Boards of Directors of the Bank and Riggs NationalCorporation hereby approve the establishment of a discretionary pool of up to$1,500,000 which may be allocated and paid, at the discretion of the Bank’s seniormanagement and the Compensation Committee of the Bank’s Board of Directors(the “Bank’s Compensation Committee”), to some or all of the employees who areparties to a Senior Executive Change of Control and Retention Agreement in effectas of the date of this resolution (such employees being the “Senior Executives”and such agreements being the “CoC Agreements”) on such terms and at such times asmay be determined by the Bank’s Compensation Committee (the “Discretionary Pool”)based upon such Senior Executive’s efforts to assist the Bank’s complianceactivities and other strategic initiatives undertaken by the Bank or theCorporation. Without limiting the foregoing, the Discretionary Pool may be usedto pay bonus amounts for the 2004 calendar year and/or may be paid in the form ofspecial retention payments as part of retention agreements. The following amountsshall count against such $1,500,000 maximum amount:
(1) any amounts directly paid to the Senior Executives out of suchDiscretionary Pool;
(2) any additional tax gross up payments that are required to bepaid to the Senior Executives under Section 6.2 of the CoC Agreements as aresult of such payments under (1) above; and
(3) any increase in the Senior Executive’s potential two timesseverance payments under Section 6.1(A) of the CoC Agreements, as a resultof such payments under (1) above, over and above the amount of suchpotential severance payments based upon the average bonuses actually paidto the Senior Executives with respect to the 2002 and 2003 calendar years(for executives who were hired in 2003, such average shall equal the bonusactually paid with respect to the 2003 calendar year).
     FURTHER RESOLVED, that no payments from the Discretionary Pool shall bepaid without the prior written approval of the Boards of Directors of the Bank andRiggs National Corporation and the receipt of any required regulatory approvals.
#### CHINAULT v. PIKE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS

No. 67 PC.

Now No. 17 PA 82.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 604.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 27 January 1982.
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 2 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 3 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 4 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 5 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 6 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 7 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 8 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 9 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 10 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 11 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 12 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 13 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 14 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 15 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 16 of 17
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 17 of 17
#### STATE v. MATHIS

No. 48P83.

Case below: 60 N.C. App. 439.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 28 January 1983.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for
the periods expressed in the Report.
  /s/ Kerry A. ShibaKerry A. ShibaChief Financial Officer
Case 1:06-cv-14971-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-14971-AKH Document 6 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 35 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### IN RE APPEAL OF BOSLEY

No. 177 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 468.

Petition by David E. Bosley for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1976.
Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC     Document 2      Filed 07/13/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03367-RPP Document 6-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR H. GARRISON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-97-83, CA-01-332-7)

Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur H. Garrison, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia;

Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney,

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur H. Garrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Garrison’s motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Garrison, Nos.

CR-97-83; CA-01-332-7 (W.D. Va. filed Jan. 10, 2002 & entered Jan.

11, 2002). We grant Garrison’s motion to construe his memorandum

as support for his motion for a certificate of appealability and

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
Case 1:07-cv-03367-RPP Document 2 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            4716
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2658
<ALLOWANCES>                                        26
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10608
<PP&E>                                           50596
<DEPRECIATION>                                   28844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   33314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8968
<BONDS>                                          18400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           761
<OTHER-SE>                                        4923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     33314
<SALES>                                           8859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 18958
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    17646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1062
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    382
<INCOME-TAX>                                        38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                344
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       344
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        
<FN>
<F1> Current portion Long Term Debt
<F2> Retained Earnings                            1315
<F3> Treasury  Stock                              7294  
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. SPLAWN

No. 88 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 14.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 1974. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 8 November 1974.
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 146 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.2          
Explanation Concerning Absence of Current Written Consent of Arthur AndersenLLP
On March 12, 2002, Riggs National Corporation (the “Company”) announced that ithad appointed KPMG LLP to replace Arthur Andersen LLP (“Arthur Andersen”) asits independent public accountants. Representatives of Arthur Andersen are notavailable to provide an updated written consent required for the incorporationby reference of its audit report with respect to the Company’s financialstatements as of, and for the yearsended, December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2000 included in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K into registration statements filed by the Company and currentlyeffective under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”).Because, after reasonable effort, the Company is unable to obtain ArthurAndersen’s written consent to such incorporation by reference of their report,Rule 437a under the Act permits the Company to omit ArthurAndersen’s updated written consent from this filing.
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act provides that if any part of a registrationstatement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of amaterial fact or an omission to state a material factrequired to be stated there in or necessary to make the statements therein notmisleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registrationstatement (unless it is proved that at the time of suchacquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may sue, amongothers, every accountant who has consented to be named as having prepared orcertified any part of the registration statement or as having preparedor certified any report or valuation which is used in connection with theregistration statement with respect to the statement in such registrationstatement, report or valuation which purports to have been prepared orcertified by the accountant.
While Arthur Andersen did consent to the incorporation by reference of itsaudit report with respect to the Company’s financial statements as of, and forthe years ended, December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2000 contained in itsAnnual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2001, as noted above, Arthur Andersen hasnot consented to the incorporation by reference of such audit report containedin this Annual Report on Form 10-K. As a result, with respect to an applicableregistration statement, the Company’s investors may not be able to recoveragainst Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Act or the lack of acurrently dated consent may limit the time inwhich any liability under Section 11(a) could be asserted against ArthurAndersen.
Exhibit Page 137

# FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE OPERATING
AND SERVICES AGREEMENT

---

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT
(First Amendment) to the OPERATING AND SERVICES AGREEMENT (the
Agreement), is made as of this 1st day of December 2000,
by and between Riggs Bank N.A., a national bank (Riggs), and RCP
Investments, L.P. (Management Company I) and RCP Investments II, LLC
(Management Company II).

# RECITALS

A. Management Company I has
entered into an Investment and Management Agreement (IM I) of even
date herewith pursuant to which Management Company I has agreed to provide
investment and management services to Riggs Capital Partners, LLC (Fund
I);

B. Management Company II
has entered into an Investment and Management Agreement (IM II) of
even date herewith pursuant to which Management Company II has agreed to provide
investment and management services to Riggs Capital Partners II, LLC (Fund
II);

C. Riggs and Management
Company I entered into the Agreement for the provision of certain services
(including the provision by Riggs of certain employees and other resources to
enable Management Company I to provide certain investment and management
services to Fund I), and for the payment of equitable compensation for services
provided; and

D. Riggs and Management
Company I now desire to include Management Company II, and Management Company II
desires to be included, as part of the Agreement to enable Management Company II
to participate in the provision of those certain services as described in
paragraph C above.

NOW, THEREFORE,
Riggs, Management Company I and Management Company II, in consideration of the
foregoing and the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, do hereby
agree as follows:

1. Effective as of the date
hereof, the Agreement is hereby amended by this First Amendment to cause
Management Company II to become a party to the Agreement as of the date hereof,
and Management Company II shall share in all rights and obligations under the
Agreement as jointly determined by Management Company I and Management Company
II from time to time.

2. The  definition of
"Management  Company" in the preamble of the  Agreement is hereby  revised to include,
collectively, RCP Investments, L.P. and RCP Investments II, LLC.

3.This First Amendment is an
integral part of the Agreement and is incorporated therein by reference.

Exhibit Page 138

|RIGGS BANK N.A.         | RCP INVESTMENTS, L.P.
|----------------------- | ---------------------
|By:/s/ Steven Tamburo   | By:/s/ JCB Jr.       
|Steven Tamburo          | J. Carter Beese, Jr.,
|Chief Financial Officer | General Partner      

| | RCP INVESTMENTS II, LLC
| | -----------------------
| | By:/s/ JCB Jr.         
| | J. Carter Beese, Jr.,  
| | Managing Director
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________________________________________

D.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MILTON 

FREEWATER POST OFFICE,

Milton Freewater, OR, Employer

________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1074

Issued: July 25, 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 July 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 6, 2022 merit decision of the 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1074.

In a letter dated August 9, 2022, and received on March 17, 2023, appellant requested that 

the appeal be withdrawn.

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

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

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

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-1074 is dismissed.

Issued: July 25, 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
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11.



                STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                ----------------------------------------------

                Basic earnings per share                             Shares
                ------------------------                             ------

                Basic shares outstanding at December 31, 2001       1,966,047

                    Net earnings            $  1,149,219       $.58 per share
                ------------------          ------------
                Basic shares outstanding       1,966,047


                Diluted earnings per share                           Shares
                --------------------------                           ------

                Basic shares outstanding at December 31, 2001       1,966,047
                Stock Options-common stock equivalents                 84,930
                                                                  -----------
                Diluted shares outstanding at December 31, 2001     2,050,977

                    Net earnings            $ 1,149,219        $.56 per share
                ----------------------      -----------
                Diluted shares outstanding    2,050,977



                Note: Basic earnings per share is computed as earnings divided
                      by weighted average shares outstanding.
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 7 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 7 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15056-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7755

GEORGE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus MICHAEL SHEEDY, Warden; JANIE W. ROUSE; JAMES BLACKWELL, Major; KENNETH SHARP, Lieutenant; NURSE HILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-1439) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Norma Anne Turner Jett, EARLY & NESS, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: George Williams 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. See Williams v. Sheedy , No. CA-03-1439 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 3, 2003 & entered Oct. 7, 2003). 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
Exhibit 31.1

I,
Edward D. Segal, certify that:

1.    I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Metron Technology N.V.;

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(s) 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:



5.    The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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):



|Date: August 29, 2003                                                   |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ EDWARD D. SEGALEdward D. Segal
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Kimball International,Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, James C. Thyen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 

 

| Date: May 6, 2010 |   |                                                    |
|-------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|              |   | /s/ James C. Thyen                                      |
|              |   | JAMES C. THYEN    President,    Chief Executive Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1677 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1677

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide authority to 
  postpone certain deadlines by reason of State declared disasters or 
                              emergencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 23 (legislative day, May 22), 2019

Mr. Perdue (for himself and Ms. Cortez Masto) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide authority to 
  postpone certain deadlines by reason of State declared disasters or 
                              emergencies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Filing Relief for Natural Disasters 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO POSTPONE FEDERAL TAX DEADLINES BY REASON OF STATE-
              DECLARED DISASTERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by 
inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Special Rule for State-Declared Disasters.--
            ``(1) In general.--Upon the request of the Governor of a 
        State (or the Mayor, in the case of the District of Columbia) 
        in which an emergency or disaster has been declared under State 
        law, subsection (a) shall apply to such State-declared 
        emergency or disaster in the same manner as such subsections 
        apply to federally declared disasters.
            ``(2) State.--For purposes of this section, the term 
        `State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to declarations made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```