alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w14



 






Exhibit 10.14




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

AMGEN RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN

(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2003)




     The Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1,
2003) (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:




Effective as of January 1, 2004, Amgen Worldwide Services, Inc. shall be a Participating
Company, and Appendix A to the Plan is hereby amended to include “Amgen Worldwide Services,
Inc.”


To record this First Amendment to the Plan as set forth herein, the Company has caused its Authorized
officer to execute this document this 9th day of June, 2004.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AMGEN INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Brian McNamee
 	 
	 	Title: Senior Vice President, Human Resources
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Porta Systems Corp. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William V. Carney, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Edward B. Kornfeld, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge and belief that:

(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.


Dated: August 12, 2004                               /s/ William V. Carney
                                                     ---------------------
                                                     William V. Carney
                                                     Chief Executive Officer



Dated: August 12, 2004                               /s/ Edward B. Kornfeld
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Edward B. Kornfeld
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss.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 the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


                                 Page 18 of 18
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF

TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rewards Network Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth R. Posner, Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration, and Chief Financial Officer 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:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



August 5, 2004



|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth R. Posner                                                                           
|Kenneth R. Posner Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration, and Chief Financial Officer
*

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4140

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Kenny Clyde Homer Bevard, II, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2005

Filed: September 20, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, FAGG, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenny Clyde Homer Bevard, II pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession

of a firearm. After Bevard’s conviction became final, the Supreme Court decided

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Bevard later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, asserting his sentence violates

Blakely. The district court*

 denied Bevard’s motion holding Blakely does not apply

on collateral review. Bevard appeals asserting Blakely and United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), should apply retroactively for three reasons. First, Bevard
-2-

contends Blakely and Booker did not create new procedural rules because their

holdings were dictated by existing precedent. Second, Bevard argues that even if

Blakely and Booker created a new procedural rule, it is a watershed rule implicating

the fundamental fairness and accuracy of criminal proceedings. Third, Bevard argues

Blakely and Booker created a substantive change in the law by changing the

punishment available for the crime. Bevard’s arguments are foreclosed by our recent

decision in Never Misses a Shot v. United States, 413 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2005). Like

all other circuits that have considered the issue, we held “the ‘new rule’ announced

in Booker does not apply to criminal convictions that became final before the rule

was announced, and thus does not benefit movants in collateral proceedings.” Id. at

___. 

We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Bevard’s motion. 

______________________________
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-32065

                                 $1,000,000,000

                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                    Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
                Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing Supplement, dated September 12, 1997
  (To Prospectus Supplement, dated August 27, 1997,
  to Prospectus, dated August 27, 1997).

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

         The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement
and modify, to the extent applicable, the description of general terms and
provisions of Citicorp's Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E, set forth in
the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement. Capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:          7.00% Subordinated Notes Due September 15, 2009 (the
                         "Notes").

Aggregate
Principal Amount:        $11,281,000.00.

Price to Public:         100.00%.

Issue Date:              September 17, 1997.

Stated Maturity Date:    September 15, 2009.

Interest Rate:           7.00%.

Interest Payment Dates:  Monthly, on the 15th day of each month, commencing in
                         October 1997, and at Stated Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:    The first day of the month in which the related
                         Interest Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:            None.

Redemption:              The Notes are subject to redemption, in whole but not
                         in part, at the option of Citicorp, on not more than 60
                         or less than 30 days' notice, on any Interest Payment
                         Date on or after September 15, 2000, at a redemption
                         price of 100% of their principal amount plus accrued
                         and unpaid interest to the redemption date.






<PAGE>


Selling Agent:           J.W. Korth & Co.

Agent's Commission:      2.00%.

Minimum Denomination:    $1,000.

CUSIP Number:            17303 MHH 5.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Dickerson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), rendered October 21, 1987, convicting him of burglary in *611the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that he should have been permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. The decision to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea rests within the sound discretion of the court (CPL 220.60 [3]). The defendant’s unsupported conclusory allegations of innocence did not warrant the vacatur of his guilty plea *(see, People v Tuttle,*141 AD2d 584; *People v Melendez,*135 AD2d 660). Despite his subsequent protestations, the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the instant burglary charge upon the advice of counsel and in satisfaction of a multiple count indictment, and in so doing he secured the minimum sentence allowable. Moreover it is evident that this defendant, who was not a criminal novice, was primarily interested in attempting to secure a lighter sentence and that his allocution adequately factually established his guilt of the crime charged. Accordingly it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to deny the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea without holding a hearing. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
COMPUTATION
  OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
  Exhibit
  11(Unaudited)(in
  thousands, except per share amounts)  Three Months Ended
  March 31,2001
  2000Basic EarningsIncome before extraordinary Items
  $9,606
  $10,757Extraordinary items  loss on
  discharge of indebtedness
  --
  (302)Net earnings
  $9,606
  $10,455Shares:Weighted average number of commonshares outstanding
  44,902
  47,952Basic earnings per common share:Income before extraordinary items
  $0.21
  $0.22Extraordinary items  loss on
  discharge of indebtedness
  --
  --Net earnings
  $0.21
  $0.22Diluted EarningsIncome before extraordinary items
  $9,606
  $10,757Extraordinary items  loss on
  discharge of indebtedness
  --
  (302)Net earnings as adjusted
  $9,606
  $10,455Shares:Weighted average number of commonshares outstanding
  44,902
  47,952Options issued
  1,420
  661Weighted average number of commonshares outstanding as adjusted
  46,322
  48,613Diluted earnings per common share:Income before extraordinary items
  $0.21
  $0.22Extraordinary items  loss on
  discharge of indebtedness
  -
  -Net earnings
  $0.21
  $0.22
#### Curtis Stanback, Respondent-Appellant, v State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries arising from medical malpractice, the State of New York appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Hanifin, J.), entered April 11, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of claimant and against it in the principal sum of $100,000, and the claimant cross-appeals from the same judgment on the ground of inadequacy.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In June 1981 the claimant, an inmate incarcerated at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility, slipped on a wet flight of stairs and injured his right knee. During the next 3 Vi years, the claimant was transferred to five other correctional facilities within the New York State Department of Correctional Services. During this period, the claimant continuously complained to prison officials of pain, swelling, and grinding of his injured knee, and instability in his legs.

The evidence adduced at the trial establishes that the State failed to properly diagnose the claimant’s condition as a torn meniscus and ligament injury, despite the fact that he exhibited the classic symptoms of such an injury. This failure to diagnose also resulted in an unreasonable delay in treatment. Although the uncontroverted testimony of the claimant’s expert medical witness demonstrated that an arthrogram would have revealed the claimant’s condition, the State treated him with nothing more than ace bandages, corrective shoes, braces and painkillers for over *3Yi*years. When the State finally did perform an arthrogram in the summer of 1984, the necessary arthroscopic surgery was delayed for about another year.

We find that the State unreasonably delayed properly diagnosing and treating the claimant for his injury, and that this failure constituted medical malpractice. Contrary to the State’s contention, these acts and omissions amount to something more than an honest error in professional judgment *(see, Bell v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*90 AD2d 270, 279; *Larkin v State of New York,*84 AD2d 438). Moreover, the State may not insulate itself under the professional medical judgment rule, since it did not exercise its judgment pursuant to a careful examination of the claimant’s condition *(see, Bell v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., supra).*

The evidence adduced at trial further demonstrates that the claimant continued to suffer pain until the arthroscopic procedure was performed, and that reconstructive surgery has been *299recommended. Under these circumstances, we further conclude that the award of $100,000, representing $35,000 for past pain and suffering, and $65,000 for future pain and suffering, was appropriate *(see, Jurgen v Linesburgh,*159 AD2d 689; *Holshek v Stokes,*122 AD2d 777). Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### KILGORE v. PICHARD et al.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 3, 1936.

Guyte P. McCord, of Tallahassee, for appellant.

Wm. Blount Myers, of Tallahassee, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard upon the transcript of the record of the order and decree rendered by the lower court, and the briefs of counsel, and the same having been duly considered by the court, no error is found in the record, and the order and decree appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
<Page>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.7

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings
L.L.C., to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of
PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.

                                               /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                               PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               August 1, 2005
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                      Registration No. 333-32065

                                 $1,000,000,000
                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                    Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
                Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing Supplement, dated March 24, 1998
(To Prospectus Supplement, dated August 27, 1997,
to Prospectus, dated August 27, 1997).


                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

         The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement
and modify, to the extent applicable, the description of general terms and
provisions of Citicorp's Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E, set forth in
the accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement. Capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:         6.450% Subordinated Notes Due March 15, 2013 (the
                        "Notes").

Aggregate
Principal Amount:       $9,356,000.00.

Price to Public:        100.00%.

Issue Date:             March 27, 1998.

Stated Maturity Date:   March 15, 2013.

Interest Rate:          6.450%.

Interest Payment Dates: Monthly, on the 15th day of each month, commencing in
                        April 1998, and at Stated Maturity.

Regular Record Dates:   The first day of the month in which the related Interest
                        Payment Date occurs.

Sinking Fund:           None.

Redemption:             The Notes are subject to redemption, in whole but not in
                        part, at the option of Citicorp, on not more than 60 or
                        less than 30 days' notice, on any Interest Payment Date
                        on or after March 15, 2001, at a redemption price of
                        100% of their principal amount plus accrued and unpaid
                        interest to the redemption date.

Purchaser:              J.W. Korth & Co.

Discount:               2.400%.

Minimum Denomination:   $1,000.

CUSIP Number:           17303 MHV 4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1153

CHANTALE TETA MAFFO,

 Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of An Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Godwill C. Tachi, THE TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, 

for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy, Shelley R. 

Goad, Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION 

LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chantale Teta Maffo, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen as untimely and 

numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record 

and Maffo’s claims, and conclude that the Board did not abuse 

its discretion in denying her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) 

(2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). 

We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons 

stated by the Board. See In re Maffo (B.I.A. Jan. 19, 2016). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Eugene Price, Appellant.

On reconsideration, memorandum decision entered July 12, 1989 [152 AD2d 968] amended to read as follows: Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21) and conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law § 105.15) based upon his constructive possession of 15 ounces of heroin found in a locker at a bus station in downtown Buffalo. The principal prosecution witness at defendant’s trial was John Glenn, the courier who transported the heroin from Los Angeles to Buffalo. At trial, the court was informed that defendant’s trial attorney had previously represented Glenn on criminal charges arising out of possession of this same contraband. Despite being made aware of this fact, from which an apparent conflict of interest could be inferred, the court failed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether defendant was aware of the potential risks involved in the apparent conflict and whether he had knowingly chosen that course *(see, People v Macerola,*47 NY2d 257, 263; *People v Gomberg,*38 NY2d 307, 313-314). The court’s failure to make inquiry and obtain the informed consent of defendant denied defendant his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel *(People v McDonald,*68 NY2d 1, 8; *People v Mattison,*67 NY2d 462, 468-469). Accordingly, defendant’s conviction must be reversed and a new trial granted.

We find no merit to defendant’s argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction *(see,*CPL 60.22, 70.20; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, first degree; conspiracy, *916second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
**Exhibit 35.2**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

 

I, Cory J. Reed, President of Deere Credit Services, Inc., state:

 

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from July 25, 2018 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2018-B transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through October 28, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 25, 2018 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2018-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 
| Date: January 11,   2019 | * * | Deere Credit   Services, Inc. |
|-------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------|
|                          |     |                               |
| * *                      | * * | * *                           |
|                          | By:      | */s/   Cory J. Reed*               |
|                          |     | Cory J. Reed                       |
|                          |     | President                          |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21062]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RR08-6-000]


North American Electric Reliability Corp; Notice of Filing

September 4, 2008.
    On September 2, 2008, the North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation (NERC) filed corrections to its August 22, 2008 filing, 
titled ``Corrected Version Filed September 2, 2008.'' NERC states that 
none of the corrections are to the actual 2009 Business Plan and 
Budgets, the eight Regional Entities or the Western Interconnection 
Regional Advisory Body.
    The filing was noticed on August 28, 2008 and the comment date 
remains the same, September 11, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21062 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P