alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15084]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel 
Reviews; Notice of Completion of Panel Review

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Completion of Panel Review.

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

SUMMARY: On April 26, 1996 the panel review of the final antidumping 
determination made by the Secretaria de Comerico y Fomento Industrial, 
in the antidumping investigation respecting Cold-Rolled Steel Sheet 
Originating in or Exported from Canada was completed. This matter was 
assigned Secretariat File No. MEX-96-1904-01.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James R. Holbein, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 
2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482-
5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a mechanism to replace domestic 
judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with 
review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel 
Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national 
courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine 
whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of 
the country that made the determination.
    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on 
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were 
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). 
The panel review in this matter was conducted in accordance with these 
Rules.

Background

    On January 26, 1996 Dofasco, Inc. filed a First Request for Panel 
Review with the Mexican Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to 
Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Panel review 
was requested of the final antidumping determination made by the 
Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial, in the antidumping 
investigation respecting Cold-Rolled Steel Sheet Originating in or 
Exported from Canada. This determination was published in the Diario 
Official de la Federacion on December 27, 1995. Pursuant to subrule 
71(2) of the Rules, the panel review in this matter was completed on 
April 26, 1996.

    Dated: May 17, 1996.
James R. Holbein,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 96-15084 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 807 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 807

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 7, 2009.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, elected to 
the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Mr. Cao.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30456

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEX HAMILTON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-89-1

- - - - - - - - - -

March 30, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alex Hamilton, Jr., federal prisoner # 02598-095, filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the

Western District of Texas. The district court for the Western

District of Texas correctly construed this § 2241 motion as a

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 and transferred the cause to the Middle District of

Louisiana. Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 
No. 98-30456

-2-

1113 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court addressed Hamilton’s 

§ 2255 motion on the merits.

Hamilton concedes and the record shows that he filed a prior

§ 2255 motion. Rather than addressing the merits of the claims,

the district court should have dismissed Hamilton’s motion for

failing to obtain this court’s permission pursuant to §§ 2244(b)

and 2255 to file the motion. The district court is forbidden to

consider Hamilton’s successive § 2255 motion which was filed

without this court’s permission. See §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255; see

In re Gassery, 116 F.3d 1051, 1051 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,

we AFFIRM the dismissal of Hamilton’s successive § 2255 motion on

this basis.

Hamilton has filed a motion for release pending appeal, a

supplemental memorandum in support of that motion, and an omnibus

motion which essentially reargues the merits of his arguments on

appeal. All of these motions are DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.2








NET TALK.COM, INC.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended June 30, 2010 of Net Talk.com, Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guillermo Rodriguez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 Company.


/s/ Guillermo RodriguezGuillermo RodriguezChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date: August 13, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SEAN DONAHUE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 237 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
ex1077.htm


    
      

      

    


    December
4, 2008

     

    Mr.
Matthew K. Rose

    Chairman

    Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corp.

    2650 Lou
Menk Drive

    Fort
Worth, TX  76131

    


     

    Dear
Matt:

     

    This will
confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s
retainers and fees for 2009.

     

    1.           All
director’s fees and retainer (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your
service on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR
Corporation and American Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2009 through
December 31, 2009, will be deferred and paid to you in accordance with this
letter agreement.

     

    2.           Fees
will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Procedures
for Deferral of Board Retainers and Fees, as amended and restated, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plan”).

     

    3.           On
the 30th business day after the date when you cease to be a Director of AMR
Corporation and any affiliates, and cease rendering services, the Stock
Equivalent Units accrued pursuant to the Plan will be converted to cash and paid
to you in a lump sum by multiplying the number of such Stock Equivalent Units by
the arithmetic mean of the high and the low of AMR stock (“fair market value”)
during the month when you ceased to be a Director of AMR Corporation and any
affiliates, and cease rendering services.  Payment cannot be
accelerated.

     

    4.           In
the event of your death, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of
death will be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the
calendar month immediately preceding your death, and the amount paid to Lisa
Rose.  The payment contemplated by this paragraph 4 will be made on
the 30th
business day following the date of your death.

     

    If the
foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the
originals (two are enclosed) and returning it to me.

     

    


     

    


    Very
truly yours,

     

    /s/
Kenneth W. Wimberly

    Kenneth
W. Wimberly

    Corporate
Secretary

    


    


    


    


    Accepted
and agreed:

    


    


    /s/
Matthew K. Rose

    Matthew
K. Rose
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Lorraine R. Walker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Showcase Automotive LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-0949-PHX-DMF 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Lorraine R. Walker filed a pro se amended complaint alleging violations 

stemming from her car lease (the “Lease”) with Defendants. (Doc. 14) Defendants 

answered and then moved to dismiss and compel arbitration. (Docs. 29, 31) Defendants’ 

motion is fully briefed and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the parties’ consent to 

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Docs. 39, 41, 43) 

 Walker signed the Lease with Defendants that included an “Arbitration 

Agreement” which states “You or we may choose to have any dispute between us 

decided by arbitration and not by a court or by jury trial. . . . If you or we choose to 

arbitrate a claim or dispute, you and we agree that no trial by jury or other judicial 

proceeding take place.” (Doc. 14 at 1-5, 19, 20) 

 Defendants argue that this Arbitration Agreement applies here and is enforceable. 

(Doc. 31) Walker argues that she was fraudulently induced to enter into the Lease and 

that the Lease is unconscionable and, therefore, the Arbitration Agreement does not apply 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

to her claims. (Doc. 41) Defendants reply that her fraudulent inducement argument 

should be heard by the arbitrator in the first instance, the Arbitration Agreement is not 

unconscionable, the cost of arbitration will not be prohibitive, and that Walker is not 

entitled to Court-supervised arbitration. (Doc. 43) 

 The Court agrees with Defendants. Walker’s fraudulent inducement argument is 

about the leasing contract as a whole, not the arbitration clause in particular. Moreover, 

the Arbitration Agreement contained an opt-out clause. (Doc. 14 at 20; Doc. 43 at 5) In 

these circumstances, binding precedent dictates that Walker’s argument be evaluated by 

the arbitrator. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 71 (2010). 

 Walker’s unconscionability arguments are not persuasive and the Court 

specifically notes that Walker did not “make a specific, individualized showing as to why 

he or she would be financially unable to bear the costs of arbitration.” Clark v. 

Renaissance West, LLC, 307 P.3d 77, 80 (Ariz. App., 2013). 

 Finally, the Court notes that Walker points to no language in the Arbitration 

Agreement that would support Court-supervised arbitration. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

Complaint and Compel Arbitration. (Doc. 43) The Clerk of the Court shall enter 

judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 28th day of August, 2018.
Form of Series A Preferred Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.2 
 

 
  







 IMPORTANT NOTICE 
 THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE, AFTER RECEIPT OF WRITTEN REQUEST THEREFOR, TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS THE DESIGNATIONS, RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES, AND LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO EACH CLASS OF
STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF OF THE CORPORATION AND THE VARIATIONS IN RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS THEREOF. SUCH REQUEST SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE CORPORATION. 
 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE NOT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, DEPOSITS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF A BANK AND ARE NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. 
 THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), OR THE SECURITIES
LAWS OF ANY STATE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED, SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF EXCEPT WHILE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATING THERETO IS IN EFFECT UNDER SUCH ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER
SUCH ACT OR SUCH LAWS. EACH PURCHASER OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IS NOTIFIED THAT THE SELLER MAY BE RELYING ON THE EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT PROVIDED BY RULE 144A THEREUNDER. ANY TRANSFEREE OF THE
SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT BY ITS ACCEPTANCE HEREOF (1) REPRESENTS THAT IT IS A “QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER” (AS DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT), (2) AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT OFFER, SELL OR
OTHERWISE TRANSFER THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT EXCEPT (A) PURSUANT TO A REGISTRATION STATEMENT WHICH IS THEN EFFECTIVE UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, (B) FOR SO LONG AS THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR RESALE PURSUANT TO RULE 144A, TO A PERSON IT REASONABLY BELIEVES IS A “QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER” AS DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT THAT PURCHASES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF A QUALIFIED
INSTITUTIONAL BUYER TO WHOM NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE TRANSFER IS BEING MADE IN RELIANCE ON RULE 144A, (C) TO THE ISSUER OR (D) PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER AVAILABLE EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT AND
(3) AGREES THAT IT WILL GIVE TO EACH PERSON TO WHOM THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE TRANSFERRED A NOTICE SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE EFFECT OF THIS LEGEND.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-51298 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. ADAM DANIEL SHEPHERD, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-643-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Adam Daniel S h epherd was convicted of one charge of failing to register

as a sex offender and was sentenced to serve 24 months in prison and 30 years
on supervised release. In this appeal, he challenges o nly the term of supervised release, arguing that it is u nreasonable and amounts to plain error b ecause it is

more than n e e d e d to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and because the district court failed to properly weigh his prior offenses, the abuse he suffered as a c hild, a n d his ignorance concerning his obligation t o register. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 17, 2013 Ly l e W . Cayce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-51298 Document: 00512411300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2013No. 12-51298

Under Shepherd’s view, the 30-year t erm of supervised release exaggerates the severity of his offenses and the danger he presents to the public. As Shepherd acknowledges, his failure t o raise his re a s o nableness challenge i n the district c ourt results in application of the plain error standard in this appeal. See United States v. Allison , 447 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir

. 2006). Under this s tandard, one must show a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 1 3 5 (2009). This court h a s discretion t o correct a plain e rror but will do so only if it s eriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See id

. The record reflects that the district c ourt p roperly considered the nature and circumstances of the offense as well as S hepherd’s history a n d characteri s t i c s i n determining his sentence. See § 3553(a). There is no indica t i o n t h at the district court failed to account for a sentencing factor that should h av e been accorded substantial w eight, gave substantial weight to an “irrelevant or improper factor,” or made “a clear error o f judgment i n b alancing [the] sentencing factors.” See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Shepherd’s arguments amount t o no more than a disagreement with the district court’s weighing o f the p e r t i n ent factors and the propriety of the sentence imposed, which does not suffice to s how e r r o r , plain o r otherwise, in connection with his sentence. See United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 3 98 (5th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-51298 Document: 00512411300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2013
EXHIBIT
23








Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-84764) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-143578, No. 333-45949, No. 333-68855,
No. 333-77111, No. 333-73240, No. 333-86796, and No. 333-115426) of
PMA Capital Corporation of our reports dated March 9, 2009, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedules
of PMA Capital Corporation and subsidiaries, and effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of PMA Capital Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.










/s/ Beard
      Miller Company LLP









Beard
Miller Company LLP


Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania


March 9,
2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 18, 2020

b1215 

# Order

Clerk December 18, 2020

161837(20)

MICHIGAN ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED

AMERICANS, DETROIT/DOWNRIVER

CHAPTER OF THE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH

INSTITUTE, CHARLES ROBINSON, GERARD

McMURRAN, and JIM PEDERSON,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 161837

COA: 354429

Ct of Claims: 2020

- 000108

- MM

SECRETARY OF STATE and ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

Defendants,

and

SENATE and HO USE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Proposed Intervenor Defendants,

and

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE and

MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY,

Proposed Intervenor

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s August 28,

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Employment Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into by and
among Northway Financial, Inc., a New Hampshire chartered corporation
("Northway"), The Berlin City Bank, a New Hampshire chartered bank and wholly
owned subsidiary of Northway with its principal office located in New Hampshire
(Northway and The Berlin City Bank are hereinafter collectively referred to as
the "Employer"), and William J. Woodward (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive are parties to an Employment
Agreement dated September 30, 1997 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive have determined that it is in their
mutual best interest to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Employer and the Executive agree as follows:

             The Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following to the
     end of Section 7(d) ("Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation"):

             Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the Executive
             becomes entitled to Termination Benefits pursuant to Section 6(f)
             ("Termination Following a Change of Control"), this Section 7(d)
             shall not apply to the Executive with respect to the Executive's
             activities during any period following the termination of the
             Executive's employment.

             This Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 1999 (the
     "Effective Date").
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as a sealed instrument
by the Employer, by its duly authorized officer, and by the Executive, as of the
Effective Date.

                                                   NORTHWAY FINANCIAL, INC.
Attest:
                                                   By:     Fletcher W. Adams
                                                           -------------------
By:   /S/ Donald R. Hatt                             Name: Fletcher W. Adams
          --------------------                       Title: Vice Chairman
Name:     Donald R. Hatt                             
Title:    Senior Executive Vice President
            and Chief Financial Officer

                                                   THE BERLIN CITY BANK

                                                   By:   /S/ William J. Woodward
                                                             -------------------
                                                   Name:     William J. Woodward
                                                   Title: President and Chief 
                                                   Executive Officer


                                                     EXECUTIVE

                                                     /S/ William J. Woodward
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         William J. Woodward