alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JWN-Q2.2014-Ex 10.5




Exhibit 10.5






SPECIAL COMPLIANCE AMENDMENT 2014-3
NORDSTROM 401(k) PLAN & PROFIT SHARING
(2008 Restatement)


The Nordstrom 401(k) Plan & Profit Sharing (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows pursuant to Plan Section 13.1-3(a) to comply with the request of the Internal Revenue Service on review of the Plan’s tax-qualified status concerning technical compliance with the requirements of Code section 401(a)(30) and the Treasury Regulations issued thereunder:


1.    Section 5.2-5 (Excess Deferrals) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following, effective for Plan Years commencing on and after January 1, 2007:


“5.2-5    Excess Deferrals.  “Excess Deferral” means, for a given calendar year, that amount by which each Participant’s total elective deferrals (as defined in Code § 402(g)(3)) under all plans of all employers exceeds the sum of the dollar limits in effect under Code § 402(g) for the calendar year and under Code § 414(v) for the taxable year, as annually indexed by the Secretary of the Treasury.  For the Plan Year beginning on January 1, 2014, the Code § 402(g) dollar limit is $17,500, and the Code § 414(v) dollar limit is $5,500. The Plan Administrator will distribute any Excess Deferral, adjusted for investment gains and losses, to the Participant no later than April 15 of the calendar year immediately following the close of the calendar year for which the Excess Deferral is made.  Solely for the Plan Year beginning January 1, 2007, the adjustment for investment gains and losses shall include gains and losses from the close of the Plan Year in which the Excess Deferral arose through a date not more than seven days before the actual distribution date.  If an Excess Deferral occurs because of deferral amounts under plans maintained by an Employer combined with deferrals under one or more plans not maintained by an Employer, the excess shall be distributed if the following conditions are satisfied:


FIRST, the Participant notifies the Plan Administrator of the Excess Deferral by March 1 following the close of the year, unless the Plan Administrator waives the deadline; and


SECOND, the notice specifies how much of the Excess Deferral is to be distributed from this Plan.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant to proper authority, this Special Compliance Amendment 2014-2 has been executed on behalf of the Company this ________ day of ________________, 2014.


NORDSTROM, INC.






By:                            
Title:    Executive Vice President
Human Resources and Diversity Affairs
Exhibit
3.1.2
 
 STATE OF
DELAWARE
 CERTIFICATION
OF AMENDMENT
 OF
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
 OF
 eDOORWAYS
CORPORATION
 
 A
corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
 
 DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY:
 
 FIRST:   That
at a meeting of the Board of Directors of eDOORWAYS CORPORATION resolutions were
duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of
Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and
calling a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for consideration
thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as
follows:
 
 RESOLVED,
that the Certificate if Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing
the Article thereof numbered "Fourth" so that, as amended, said Article shall be
and read as follows:
 
 The total
number of shares of stock which the corporation shall have authority to issue is
one billion (1,000,000,000) shares, of which 990,899,000 shall be common shares,
and 9,101,000 shall be preferred shares.  The preferred shares shall
be classified as Series A Convertible Preferred shares with 7,000,000 shares
authorized, Series B Convertible Preferred with 1,100,000 shares authorized,
Series C Convertible Preferred with 1,000,000 shares authorized, and Series D
Preferred Stock with 1,000 shares authorized.  The par value of each
of such shares is one one-tenth of one cent ($0.001) dollars. The board of
Directors is expressly vested with the authority to fix the voting powers, full
or limited, or no voting powers, and such designations, preferences and
relative, participating, optional or other special rights, and qualifications,
limitations or restrictions on any shares issued by the
corporation.
 
 SECOND:   That
thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, a special meeting
of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held upon notice in
accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute
were voted in favor of the amendment.
 
 THIRD:   That
said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
 
 FOURTH:   That
the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by reason of said
amendment.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, said eDOORWAYS CORPORATION. has caused this certificate to be
signed by Gary F. Kimmons, an Authorized Officer, this 30th day
of November, 2007.
 
 By:
              
              /s/
      Gary F. KimmonsAuthorized
      OfficerTitle:
      PresidentName:
      Gary F. KimmonsPrint
      or type
# C_2011241EN.01000701.xml

| 19.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 August 2011

2011/C 241/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4369 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 110,08 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4506 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87060 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1590 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1410 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8035 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,423 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,13 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1526 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2600 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5519 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3754 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4175 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2018 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7293 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7437 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 547,76 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,2852 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1785 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4698 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 288,87 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2834 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,041 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,8725 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,978 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2956 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7242 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,7380 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4369

JPY

Japanese yen

110,08

DKK

Danish krone

7,4506

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87060

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1590

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1410

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8035

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,423

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,13

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7095

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1526

RON

Romanian leu

4,2600

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5519

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3754

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4175

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2018

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7293

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7437

KRW

South Korean won

1 547,76

ZAR

South African rand

10,2852

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1785

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4698

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 288,87

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2834

PHP

Philippine peso

61,041

RUB

Russian rouble

41,8725

THB

Thai baht

42,978

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2956

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7242

INR

Indian rupee

65,7380

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-KSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,385
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        266
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,271
<PP&E>                                             660
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,517
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,745
<COMMON>                                         6,764
<OTHER-SE>                                       (150)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,016
<SALES>                                         12,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,733
<CGS>                                           10,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (134)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (5,406)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,818
<INCOME-TAX>                                       129
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,689
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,689
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 454-462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6261]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-15]


36(b)(1) Arms Sale Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sale notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-15 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.


[[Page 455]]


    Dated: December 26, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 456]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA08.036


[[Page 457]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA08.037


[[Page 458]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA08.038


[[Page 459]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA08.039


[[Page 460]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA08.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA08.041


[[Page 461]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA08.042


[[Page 462]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03JA08.043

[FR Doc. 07-6261 Filed 1-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

WILLIE JAMES HUDSON, 

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00190-MP-GRJ

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated July 12, 2013. (Doc. 25). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). After being granted eight extensions of time,

petitioner has filed objections at Doc. 49. I have made a de novo review based on those

objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I

have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated

by reference in this order. 

2. The petition at Doc. 1 is DENIED, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2014

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00190-MP-GRJ Document 50 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 1
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000003227-APR-201208:26 AM
#### STATE v. MARTIN

No. 32.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 132.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1972. Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with rules of Supreme Court 31 August 1972.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Quarterly Report of Independent Film Development Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeff Ritchie, the Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for the period ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  February 15, 2011



/s/   Jeff Ritchie

Jeff Ritchie

Chief Executive Officer and Director
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RUFUS MILLER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-276-MW/GRJ

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

The Court has considered the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, 

ECF No. 30, filed August 6, 2013. The Court has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s 

Objections to the Report and recommendation, ECF No. 33, filed August 28, 2013. 

Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the Court’s 

opinion. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The petition for writ of habeas 
2

corpus is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.”

The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on August 30, 2013.

s/Mark E. Walker

United States District Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DALJIT SINGH,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-00207-MP-WCS

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DAVID HARVEY, ERIC H HOLDER, JR,

MARC MOORE, JANET NAPOLITANO, MICHAEL ROZOS,

Respondents.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 12, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that respondents’ motion to dismiss be granted and this

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed as moot because

petitioner has been removed from the United States. Petitioner has not objected to the

recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is accordingly

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 12, is

ACCEPTED and incorporated herein.

2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 11, is GRANTED.

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00207-MP-WCS Document 14 Filed 08/25/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011187EN.01001301.xml

| 28.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/13

---

Call for proposals under the multi-annual work programme 2011 for grants in the field of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) for the period 2007-2013

(Commission Decision C(2011) 1766 as amended by Decision C(2011) 4317)

2011/C 187/07

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport is hereby launching a call for proposals, under the multi-annual work programme for the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) for the period 2007-2013, in order to award grants to:

Field No 14: TEN-T Priority Project No 21 — Motorways of the Sea. The maximum total amount available for the selected proposals, for 2011, is EUR 70 million.

Field No 15: Projects in the field of River Information Services (RIS). The maximum total amount available for the selected proposals, for 2011, is EUR 10 million.

Field No 16: Projects in the field of European Rail Traffic Management Systems (ERTMS). The maximum total amount available for the selected proposals, for 2011, is EUR 100 million.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 23 September 2011.

The complete text of the call for proposals is available on:

http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/apply_for_funding/follow_the_funding_process/calls_for_proposals_2011.htm

---
[No. 1939]

#### THE STATE OF NEVADA, Appellant *v.*FRANK BAUER, Respondent.

1. CRIMINAL Law — New Trial — Insufficiency of Evidence-Review.

An order granting accused a new trial for insufficiency of evidence to support a conviction will not be disturbed on appeal, except in case of abuse of discretion.

2. Idem — New Trial — Bill of Exceptions.

A motion for a new trial may be heard by the trial court without a bill of exceptions, statement, or affidavit, when it is based on matters which transpired before, and are within the knowledge of the court.

Appeal from the Ninth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, White Pine County; *Thomas L. Mitchell,*Judge.

Frank Bauer was convicted of burglary, and from an order granting a new trial the State appeals.

Affirmed.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

*Cleveland H. Baker,*Attorney-General, and *C. R. Reeves,*ex-District Attorney for the State.

*A. L. Haight,*for Respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal by the state from an order granting the defendant a new trial after a verdict of guilty of burglary. The motion was made upon several grounds, and was granted upon the two that the verdict is contrary to law and contrary to the evidence. The evidence in the case was circumstantial, and in some respects may *306be said to be conflicting. The trial judge heard the testimony, and had an opportunity to observe the witnesses.

A certain amount of discretion is reposed in the trial court in the matter of granting or refusing new trials, and, where a new trial is granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed except in case of an abuse of discretion. We cannot say from the record that there was such an abuse of discretion. *(State*v. *Stanley,*4 Nev. 71; *Worthing*v. *Cutts,*8 Nev. 121; *Treadway*v. *Wilder,*9 Nev. 70; *Golden*v. *Murphy,*27 Nev. 379.) The statute provides that not more than two new trials shall be granted for the cause that the verdict is contrary to law or evidence. (Comp. Laws, 4393; Rev. Laws, 7234.)

It is also claimed that the order granting the new trial was improperly made because at the time it was presented no bill of exceptions, statement, or affidavit had been filed on which it could be based. In the opinion this day filed in the case of *State*v. *Orr,*34 Nev. 297, we have considered this question at length, and have held that the court may determine the motion for a new trial in a criminal case without the presentation of a bill of exceptions, statement, or affidavit when the order is based upon matters which transpired before, and are in the knowledge of the court.

The order appealed from is affirmed.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BEN POITEVINT, SR., 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00076-MP-GRJ

UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LP, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

A pre-trial conference was held in this case on February 7, 2013, in which counsel for

each side participated. As discussed during the conference, the motions in limine filed by the

plaintiff and defendant have either been resolved by agreement or should be re-raised by

appropriate objection during the trial if needed. The parties also agreed to this case taking

approximately 2 days to try and that it would be tried before 7 jurors, with 6 being sufficient if

necessary. The case is hereby set for trial the week of Tuesday, May 7, 2013. The attorney

conference will be at 8:30 a.m. in the Chambers of Senior Judge Paul, and jury selection will

begin immediately thereafter.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2013

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
# C_2010162EN.01000601.xml

| 22.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/6

---

Training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges

2010/C 162/03

A new call for proposals on training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges has been published on:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/calls/index.html

Deadline for application: 30 September 2010.

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

vs. 3:11cr20/MCR

GABRIEL JURON BOLDEN,

 Defendant.

_________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11,

Fed.R.Crim.P., and has entered a plea of guilty to the two count indictment against

him. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning the

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable

and voluntary, and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in

fact containing each of the essential elements ofsuch offense. I therefore recommend

that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be adjudicated guilty and

have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: April 5, 2011

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within 24 hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket isfor the court’s internal use only, and does

not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure

to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28

U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988).

th