alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion of Balch & Bingham LLP


 Exhibit 4.2 
 May 27, 2009 
 The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. 
 100 Colonial Bank Blvd, 3rd floor 
 Montgomery, Alabama 36116 
  

	 	Re:	Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the issuance of shares of Common Stock under 


	 	    	The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) 

 Gentlemen: 
 We are familiar with the proceedings taken and proposed to be taken by The Colonial BancGroup, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), in connection with the proposed issuance by the Company of shares of its Common Stock, par value of $2.50 per share, in connection with the Plan. We have also acted as counsel for the Company in connection with
the preparation and filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the Securities Act of 1933, of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 referred to in the caption above. In this connection we have reviewed such documents and matters of
law as we have deemed relevant and necessary as a basis for the opinions expressed herein. 
 Upon the basis of the foregoing, we are of the
opinion that: 
 (i) The Company is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware; 
 (ii) The shares of Common Stock of the Company referred to above, to the extent actually issued by the Company, when so issued upon receipt of the
consideration approved by the Board of Directors of the Company (not less than the par value of the Common Stock), will be duly and validly authorized and issued and will be fully paid and nonassessable shares of Common Stock of the Company; and

 (iii) Under the laws of the State of Delaware, no personal liability attaches to the ownership of the shares of Common Stock of the
Company. 
 The opinions herein are limited to the corporate laws of the State of Delaware. To the extent that any of the documents or
instruments referred to herein are governed by the corporate laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Delaware, we have assumed that the laws of such jurisdiction are the same as the laws of the State of Delaware. This opinion concerns only
the effect of the laws of the State of Delaware (exclusive of securities or “blue sky” laws and the principles of conflicts of laws) as currently in effect. This opinion is limited to the matters set forth herein, and no other opinions
should be inferred beyond the matters expressly stated. 
 This opinion is rendered as of the date hereof. We assume no obligation to update
such opinion to reflect any facts or circumstances which may hereafter come to our attention or changes in the law which may hereafter occur. We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Prospectus and to the filing of a copy of this opinion as
an exhibit to the Registration Statement. In giving our consent, we do not admit that we are “experts” within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act or within the category of persons whose consent is required by Section 7 of the
Act. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 /s/ Balch & Bingham LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 12/31/99
     BALANCE SHEETS AND  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED
     IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               274
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     10,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                         117
<INVENTORY>                                       52,641
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  65,373
<PP&E>                                            40,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   124,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              8,624
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          54,491
<OTHER-SE>                                           (38)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     124,099
<SALES>                                           40,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  40,366
<CGS>                                             22,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  10,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    6,116
<INCOME-TAX>                                       2,507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                3,609
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       3,609
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.18



</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1415 

KA 11-02499 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JERROD A. PUGH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM,

PLLC (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered October 22, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a

weapon in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second

degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). The charges arose from an incident

in which defendant and an accomplice entered a nail salon wearing

black masks, and the accomplice pointed a gun at the salon owner’s

head while defendant guarded the door and prevented the occupants from

escaping. Almost immediately after they entered the salon, the shop

owner disarmed the accomplice, and defendant and the accomplice fled. 

It was undisputed at trial that defendant never handled the weapon.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence is legally

sufficient to support the conviction inasmuch as there is a “valid

line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a

rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of

the evidence at trial” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We

conclude that the jury reasonably could have found “ ‘that defendant,

acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the

crime, intentionally aid[ed] another in the conduct constituting the

offense’ ” (People v Trinidad, 107 AD3d 1432, 1433, lv denied 21 NY3d

1046; see Penal Law § 20.00; People v Witherspoon, 300 AD2d 605, 605,

lv denied 99 NY2d 634). We further conclude that the evidence is

legally sufficient to establish that defendant jointly possessed the

accomplice’s loaded firearm (see People v Velasquez, 44 AD3d 412, 412,

lv denied 9 NY3d 1040). 
-2- 1415 

KA 11-02499 

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude

that none requires modification or reversal of the judgment.

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2471 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2471

          To suspend for 3 years the duty on methoxyfenozide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2000

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend for 3 years the duty on methoxyfenozide.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON METHOXYFENOZIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.32.90      Benzoic acid, 3-    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/
                         methoxy-2-methyl-                                                  31/2002          ''.
                         ,2-(3,5-
                         dimethylbenzoyl)-
                         2-(1,1-dimethyl
                         ethyl) hydrazide
                         (CAS No. 161050-
                         58-4) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2928.00.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[File No. 6769]

#### WARD COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation and Political Subdivision of the State of North Dakota, Respondent, v. ALEX D. PRINGLE, Fred M. Brey, E. A. Donnelly, H. J. Yuly, Bertel Jacobsen and State Bonding Fund, Appellants.

(5 NW(2d) 432)

Opinion filed August 19, 1942.

*Alvin C. Strutz,*Attorney General, *P. 0. Saihre*and *C. E. Brace,*Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant State Bonding Fund.

*O. B. Herigstad,*for appellants Pringle, Brey, Donnelly and Yuly.

*Halvor L. Ilalvorson,*for appellant Jacobsen.

*Ben A. Johnson,*State’s Attorney, *B. A. Dickinson,*Assistant State’s Attorney, and *Paul Campbell,*for respondent.

Christianson, J.

This case was argued and submitted with Ward County v. Balerud, ante, 173, 5 NW (2d) 425. The action grew out of another issue of funding bonds that were issued and delivered by Ward County in 1937. In this action, too, recovery is sought against the then county auditor, county treasurer, and county commissioners, and the surety on their official bonds on precisely the same grounds as in Ward County v. Balerud et al. Aside from dates and amounts, the allegations in the complaint are the same as in the other case. The same three *186taxpayers filed tbe claim' against the'State Bonding 'Fund as in the. Balerud Case. Here, too, demurrers were interposed as in the other case, and what is said in the decision in the other case is wholly applicable’and determinative of the questions presented on appeal in'this case. , .....

The order appealed from is affirmed as to the appellants Pringle, Brey, Donnelly, Yuly, and Jacobsen; and it is reversed, and the action is ordered to be dismissed, as against the appellant State Bonding Fund.

Burr, Ch. J., and Morris, Buree, and Nuessle, JJ., concur;
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2289 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                Private Calendar No. 29
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2289

                          [Report No. 106-966]

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2000

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                            October 11, 2000

       Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
            For the relief of Jose Guadalupe Tellez Pinales.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose Guadalupe 
Tellez Pinales shall be held and considered to have been lawfully 
admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

            Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

                                                Private Calendar No. 29

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2289

                          [Report No. 106-966]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

            For the relief of Jose Guadalupe Tellez Pinales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 11, 2000

       Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report")
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

     Agustin Garcia Mansilla, the Chief Executive Officer and Gustavo Castelli,
the Chief Financial Officer of Quilmes Industrial (Quinsa), Societe Anonyme,
each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

     1.  the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Quilmes Industrial (Quinsa), Societe Anonyme.

Date:  June 30, 2006

QUILMES INDUSTRIAL (QUINSA), SOCIETE ANONYME


By:      /s/ Agustin Garcia Mansilla
         --------------------------------------------------
         Name:   Agustin Garcia Mansilla
         Title:  Chief Executive Officer



QUILMES INDUSTRIAL (QUINSA), SOCIETE ANONYME


By:      /s/ Gustavo Castelli
         -------------------------------------------------
         Name:   Gustavo Castelli
         Title:  Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of
Cadence Financial Corporation (the Corporation) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lewis F. Mallory, Jr., the Chief Executive
Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 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 Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.Name:

Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.Title:

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

August 7, 2008


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



27
|  | Lobbying Disclosure Act:             SEC. 9. AMENDMENTS TO THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT. |  |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|

| [Sec. 9 provides for amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 USC 611 et seq.]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| Current through April 1, 2019— This compilation includes language from Public Law 104-65, as well as amending language from Public Laws 105-166 and 110-81 and 115-418. These materials are not official  evidence of the laws set forth herein. Sections 112 and 204 of title 1 of the United States Code establish the rules governing which text serves as legal evidence of the laws of the United States.

 For changes, after the closing date of this publication, to provisions of law in this publication, see the United States Code Classification Tables published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives at http://uscode.house.gov/classification/tables.shtml. |
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21


                     THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     The Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") between ICO, Inc., a Texas
corporation (the "Company") and Sylvia A. Pacholder (the "Executive") dated
April 1, 1995, as amended by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated
June 14, 1996 and as amended by the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement
dated February 7, 1997, is amended hereby as follows:

     Paragraph 6(b) of the Agreement is amended to replace the words
"three-year" in the first sentence thereof with "five-year."

     Paragraph 6(d)(i)(C) of the Agreement is amended to replace the first word
thereof "three" with "five."

     Paragraph 6(d)(iv) of the Agreement is amended to replace the fourth word
thereof "three" with "five."

     Paragraph 6(d)(i)(B) of the Agreement is amended to replace the words "a
particular year" in the fourth line thereof with "the particular year in which
the termination occurs."

     Except as amended by this Third Amendment, all other provisions of the
Agreement, as amended to date, hereby are ratified and affirmed.

     In witness whereof, the Executive has set her hand hereunto, and, pursuant
to the authorization from the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors,
the Company has caused these presents to be executed in its name on its behalf,
this 4th day of September, 1998.


                                       /s/ Sylvia A. Pacholder
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Sylvia A. Pacholder

                                       ICO, Inc.

                                       By: /s/ Jon C. Biro
                                           -------------------------------
                                       Name: Jon C. Biro
                                             -----------------------------
                                       Title: Sr. Vice President/Treasurer
                                              ----------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 24, 2012

p1017

Order 

October 24, 2012

145646 & (65)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145646

COA: 301546 

Lenawee CC: 09-014365-FC 

JEFFERY ALAN DOUGLAS,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in 

concluding that the defendant was prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to inform him of a 

mandatory minimum sentence if convicted of the charged offense where the trial court 

determined that the defendant refused plea offers because he claimed to be innocent; (2) 

whether the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel may include re-offering a plea 

bargain to a lesser charge after the defendant has testified at a trial that he did not commit 

an offense; (3) under MRE 803A(3), what circumstances other than “fear” may excuse 

the failure of a child to report sexual abuse immediately; (4) whether a second 

corroborative statement concerning sexual abuse is admissible under MRE 803A where 

the statement includes a different allegation of sexual abuse than was provided in the 

declarant’s first statement; and (5) whether a witness’s testimony that a child’s statement 

was “substantiated” constitutes improper vouching. The motion for bond is DENIED.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.