alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3 Amendment No. 1 to Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. 2000 Stock
      Incentive Plan


    Exhibit
      10.3

    


    


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO PINNACLE FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC.

    2000
      STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

    


    


    WHEREAS,
      the Board of Directors and shareholders of Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.,
      a
      Tennessee corporation (the "Company"), have previously adopted the 2000 Stock
      Incentive Plan (the "Plan"); and 

     

    WHEREAS,
      pursuant to Section 5.8 of the Plan, the Company's Board of Directors has
      retained the right to amend the Plan; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company's Board of Directors now desires to amend the Plan;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and by resolution of the Company's
      Board of Directors, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

    


    1. Section
      5.2(b) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
      following:

     

    “(b)
      In
      the event of any merger, consolidation, extraordinary stock or cash dividend
      (including a spin-off), reorganization or other change in the corporate
      structure of the Company or its Stock or tender offer for shares of Stock,
      the
      Committee shall make an equitable and proportionate adjustment with respect
      to
      awards to reflect or in anticipation of such merger, consolidation,
      extraordinary dividend (including a spin-off), reorganization, other change
      in
      corporate structure or tender offer, all as may be provided in the applicable
      Stock Incentive Agreement. The Committee's general authority under this Section
      5.2 is limited by and subject to all other express provisions of the Plan.
      Any
      adjustment pursuant to this Section 5.2 may provide, in the Committee's
      discretion, for the elimination without payment thereof of any fractional shares
      that might otherwise become subject to any Stock Incentive." 

    


    2. Except
      as
      expressly stated herein, all other portions of the Plan remain in full force
      and
      effect.

    


    3. This
      Amendment No. 1 to the Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive
      Plan is effective this 19th day of September, 2006.

    


    


    


    PINNACLE
      FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC.

    


    By: 
      /s/
      Hugh M. Queener

    Name:
      Hugh
      M. Queener 

    Title:
      Secretary
      to the Board 

    
      6132229.1
Case 2:17-cr-01431-DGC Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01431-DGC Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01431-DGC Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01431-DGC Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 4 of 4
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38685

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HANS MICHAEL HOLSOPPLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 375

Filed: February 27, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Timothy Hansen, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent life sentences, with minimum periods of 

confinement of twenty years, for first degree kidnapping and rape, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Hans Michael Holsopple pled guilty to first degree kidnapping, Idaho Code §§ 18-4501, 

18-4502, 18-204, 19-304, and rape, Idaho Code §§ 18-6101, 19-304. The district court 

sentenced Holsopple to concurrent life terms, with twenty years determinate, for each count. 

Holsopple appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 

1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Holsopple’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed
ISSUED ON 3:55 pm, Oct 19, 2017 s/ Brian D. Karth, Clerk

Case 2:17-cv-03830-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-03830-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/19/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:17-cr-01428-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01428-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01428-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/05/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01428-DGC Document 1 Filed 09/05/17 Page 4 of 4
*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 10 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES A. WILLIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

N. L. CONNOR, Warden, United

States Penitentiary,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 02-3216

D.C. No. 02-CV-3017-RDR

(D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, LUCERO and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner James A. Willis files under § 2241 to challenge his federal

sentence for the possession and distribution of cocaine. He alleges that his

sentence is invalid because (1) the trial court was without jurisdiction and the

indictment against him was void, (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel,

and (3) he was a victim of prosecutorial misconduct.
- 2 -

But motions under § 2241, such as the one Willis now files, are generally

reserved to challenge the execution of a sentence rather than its validity. 

Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). The proper venue for

attacking a sentence itself is under § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Moreover, claims may only be made under § 2241 when the statute is the

litigant’s exclusive remedy. Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166. Willis’s claim here is

more properly brought under § 2255 as it challenges the validity of his sentence

rather than the conditions of his confinement. Id. (holding that a petition under

§ 2241 cannot be “an additional, alternative, or supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255”). He makes no other showing that § 2255 would be inadequate or

ineffective as a remedy. Id.

Mr. Willis’s motion to replace pages in his brief is denied as moot. For

substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and the district court, we

AFFIRM the denial of Willis’s § 2241 motion.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements Nos. 333-128632 and 333-128630 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 23, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of TRX, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includesan explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*—*an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109*, effectiveJanuary 1, 2007), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of TRX, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

February 23, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 377 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 377

 Recognizing Armed Forces Day and the exemplary service of the members 
                   of the United States Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2009

 Mr. Calvert (for himself and Mr. Abercrombie) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing Armed Forces Day and the exemplary service of the members 
                   of the United States Armed Forces.

Whereas Armed Forces Day was created in 1949 in connection with the 
        consolidation of the military services in the Department of Defense;
Whereas the purpose of Armed Forces Day is to honor the men and women who are 
        serving in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, 
        including the National Guard and Reserve components;
Whereas Armed Forces Day is celebrated on the third Saturday in May, which this 
        year is May 16, 2009;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces have performed tremendous service on behalf 
        of the United States;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces have been killed and injured in operations 
        to bring peace and stability in the name of democracy; and
Whereas all Americans express their recognition and gratitude for members of the 
        Armed Forces at home and abroad: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives, on the occasion of 
Armed Forces Day 2009--
            (1) honors and recognizes the service and sacrifice that 
        members of the Armed Forces and their families gave, and 
        continue to give, to the United States;
            (2) remains committed to supporting the members of the 
        Armed Forces and their families;
            (3) encourages Americans to show their support and 
        appreciation for members of the Armed Forces on Armed Forces 
        Day;
            (4) commends the actions of private citizens and 
        organizations who volunteer to support America's wounded 
        warriors; and
            (5) expresses the gratitude of the American people to the 
        members of the Armed Forces for their service on behalf of the 
        United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### SERVICE LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rhonda Kay THOMAS.

No. D-4220.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Dec. 22, 1993.

Joint motion for rehearing (pursuant to settlement) filed herein on November 30, 1993, is granted; the order of this Court of November 10, 1993, denying application for writ of error is withdrawn, and the application is granted without reference to the merits. The judgments of the courts below are set aside without reference to the merits; the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties.
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification****Pursuant to Section 302 of the****Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Lou Ellen Ficke, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,2005 of Discovery Bancorp;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: August 12, 2005 /s/ Lou Ellen Ficke     Lou Ellen Ficke  *Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer*
32
#### Eric WALLACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56394.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 23, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 7, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied April 17, 1990.

llene A. Goodman, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Levin Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion to vacate sentence pursuant to a guilty plea on second degree murder. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would serve no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




STATEMENT
      REQUIRED BY 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-QSB of BMX Development Corp.
      (FKA Biometrix International, Inc.) for the three and nine months ended
      September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Bongiovanni, our President, Chief
      Executive Officer, certify that:





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




*   information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our
      consolidated financial condition and results of operations.







/s/
      Michael J. Bongiovanni


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


Michael
      J. Bongiovanni


President,
      Chief Executive Officer








October
      9, 2007







This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12532]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 051396H]


Marine Mammals; Permit No. 928 (P351E)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application for modification.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that North Gulf Oceanic Society, P.O. 
Box 15244, Homer, Alaska 99603, has requested a modification to permit 
No. 928.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 14, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The modification request and related documents are available 
for review upon written request or by appointment in the following 
office(s):
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289);
    Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-
1668 (907/586-7221).
    Written data or views, or requests for a public hearing on this 
request should be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 
20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the 
specific reasons why a hearing on this particular modification request 
would be appropriate.
    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine 
Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject modification to permit no. 928, 
issued on July 18, 1994 (59 FR 37745) is requested under the authority 
of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine 
Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the 
taking, importing, and exporting of endangered fish and wildlife (50 
CFR part 222).
    Permit No. 928 authorizes the Permit Holder to harass during photo-
identification studies up to 100 humpback whales (Megaptera 
novaeangliae) annually in Prince William Sound, Alaska and adjacent 
waters. Permit Holder now seeks authorization to: Increase the number 
of humpback whales authorized to be harassed during photo-
identification activities to 400 annually; biopsy sample up to 50 of 
these animals annually, not to exceed 100 takes in four years; and to 
expand the research area to include all Alaska waters.

    Dated: May 14, 1996.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permit and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12532 Filed 5-15-96; 2:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.2


                          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 High  Tide  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  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 to his knowledge:

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.

Date: November 14, 2005


/s/ Douglas Smith
------------------------------------
Douglas Smith
Principal Financial Officer
#### Davie HENDERSON, Jr., Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 65570.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 15, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 3, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 21, 1995.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).