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





AMENDMENT
TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEE SALARY
CONTINUATION
AGREEMENT
FOR
DAN
S. DUGAN
Mercantile
Trust & Savings Bank
Quincy,
Illinois



     THIS
AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEE SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT dated December 8,
1994 by and between Mercantile Trust & Savings Bank, an Illinois corporation
(the “Company”) and Dan S. Dugan (the “Participant”) is made
effective April 26, 2004. 



     WHEREAS,
the Company and the Participant entered into an Executive Employee Salary
Continuation Agreement dated December 8, 1994 (the “Agreement”); and 



     WHEREAS,
the Company and the Participant have determined that there were provisions in
the Agreement providing for a benefit to be payable upon Participant’s
Discharge for Cause; and 



     WHEREAS,
the Company and the Participant wish to amend the Agreement to specify their
intent that no benefit would be payable upon the Participant’s Discharge
for Cause and upon a Discharge for Cause the Participant would forfeit all
rights in and to any benefits under the Agreement. 



     NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company and the Participant, in consideration of the premises,
hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 



     1.
Paragraph 3.4 a) is hereby deleted and inserted in lieu thereof is the following: 



	 	“3.4 	Other Terminations of Employment.







	 	a)	Voluntary
Termination of Employment Prior to the Early Retirement Date. Upon the  Participant’s
voluntary Termination of Employment prior to reaching the Early  Retirement Date, for
reasons other than death, the Company shall pay the “Immediate  Lump Sum Benefit”,
if any, for the Participant’s Age at the time of voluntary  Termination of
Employment prior to the Early Retirement Date pursuant to Exhibit A  attached to this
Agreement, and the Participant shall have no further right to receive any  additional
benefit hereunder.”







     2.
The following new section 3.4 d) is hereby added to the Agreement to read as follows: 



1 










	 	“d)	Involuntary
Termination of Employment Upon the Participant’s Discharge for Cause  At Any
Time. Upon the Participant’s Discharge for Cause at any time, the  Participant
shall forfeit all rights, vested and unvested, that the Participant has in and  to
benefits under the Agreement. The Participant agrees that no benefits shall be payable
pursuant to the Agreement if the employment of the Participant is involuntarily
terminated  on account of a Discharge for Cause at any time. On Discharge for Cause, the
Company shall  have no obligation to pay any benefit to the Participant under the terms
of the Agreement. 







     3.
Except as set forth in this  Amendment,  the Agreement  shall remain  unaltered and in
full force  and effect according to its terms and conditions. 



     IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Executive Employee Salary Continuation
Agreement has been executed by the Company and the Participant as of the date
first above written. 



	 	Mercantile
Trust & Savings Bank
Quincy, Illinois
 
By /s/ Dan S. Dugan                    

      Its
President
 
/s/ Dan S. Dugan                          
      Dan S. Dugan







2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02296-MSK-MJW

MICHELLE HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

BLAKE BELL, individually and in his capacity as an employee with the United States

Department of Agriculture,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.
DATED this 22nd day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS L. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKENS, Education Department,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Vacate Motion Hearing (Docket

No. 267) is granted. The Motion Hearing set on August 22, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. is

VACATED. 

Date: August 20, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 269 Filed 08/20/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Mrs. Lilah Mearl LITTLE, Administratrix of the Succession of Thomas Ravel Little, Deceased, Plaintiff-appellee-appellant v. EL DORADO CREOSOTING COMPANY, Defendant-appellant and Coal Operators Casualty Company, defendant-appellee.

No. 8122.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 24, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1954.

Writ of Certiorari Granted May 31, 1954.

Booth, Lockard,' Jack & Pleasant,' Shreveport, for El Dorado Creosoting Co.

Gravel & Downs, Alexandria, for Coal Operators Casualty Co.

Spencer & Spencer, El Dorado,- Ark., Jackson & Reynolds, Homer, for Mrs.' Lilah Mearl Little gnd others.

GLADNEY, Judge.

The issues of both fact and law presented in this case are not different from those presented in Johnson v. El Dorado Creosoting Company and Coal Operators Casualty Company, La.App., 71 So.2d 613. Our findings therein are decisive in the instant case.

*622The judgment from which appealed is reversed and set aside insofar as it overruled the exception to the jurisdiction ratione personae filed by the El Dorado Creosoting Company, Inc., and it is ordered that said exception be sustained as to the above named defendant, and plaintiff’s suit be and is hereby dismissed as of non-suit at plaintiff’s cost. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed at plaintiff’s costs.

AYRES, J., is recused.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 836 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 5, 2007.
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. GRANTING INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY TO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR.

    The Committee on Education and Labor is granted the authority provided under 
clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives in 
furtherance of the investigation by such Committee into the deaths of 9 
individuals that occurred during August 2007 at the Crandall Canyon Mine (also 
known as the Genwal Mine) near Huntington, Utah, including the events that may 
have led to those deaths and into the administration of relevant laws by 
government agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration, and into other related matters.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6636

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CARL BLAISE, a/k/a Carl Malaskiewicz, a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a Carl Coydic, a/k/a Carl Blais, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-00-218-A, CA-02-1808-AM) Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Blaise, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Kennedy, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Carl Blaise seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039-40 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blaise has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.2


   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) AS ADOPTED,
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Armand Correia, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Dress Barn, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

         a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
         or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.



Date: October 13, 2004


/s/ Armand Correia
Armand Correia
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 88 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of the 

House are not immune from having their offices searched. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2007 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida (for herself, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. MILLER

of Michigan, Mr. CASTLE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. 

MYRICK, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. PORTER, Mr. MCCOTTER, 

Mr. PITTS, and Mr. JINDAL) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

Members of the House are not immune from having 

their offices searched. 

Whereas Members of the House of Representatives are not 

above the law; 

Whereas Members have a public trust to uphold; 

Whereas Members are elected to represent the interests of 

their constituents, not to protect their own interests; 

Whereas only certain legislative activities are protected from 

interference by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution of the United States; and 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HRES 88 IH 

Whereas the courts have ruled that the Speech or Debate 

Clause does not shield Members from investigation of and 

prosecution for criminal activity: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that if there is an ongoing criminal investiga3 tion into the activities of a Member of the House of Rep4 resentatives, the Member’s congressional office may be 

5 subject to searches and seizures by appropriate executive 

6 branch officials in possession of a valid court order. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50132 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE LUIS NAJERA-GUTIERREZ, also known as Jaime Pacheco-Rosales, also known as Ismael Lopez, also known as Jaime Rosales, also known as Oscar Lopez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-97-CR-274-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel for José Luis Najera-Gutierrez moves to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The motion to withdraw is granted and counsel is relieved of further responsibilities herein. In his plea agreement, Najera waived his right to appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. United States v. Hoctel , 154 F.3d 506 (5th Cir. Sept. 11, 1998, No. 97-50916) slip op. at 5733-34, 1998 WL 611106. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 861 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 12, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to 
provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions of the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 4351 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 1:11-cv-02251-CMA-MJW Document 41 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02251-CMA-MJW Document 41 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. of our report dated December 18, 2008,
included in the 2008 Annual Report to Shareholders of Span-America Medical
Systems, Inc.





Our
audits also included the financial statement schedule of Span-America Medical
Systems, Inc. listed in Item 15(a) for the years ended September 27, 2008,
September 29, 2007, and September 30, 2006.  This schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial
statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.





We also
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-32896) pertaining to the Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1987
Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-84374)
pertaining to the Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1991 Stock Option Plan and
in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-70533) pertaining to the
Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-75656) pertaining to the Span-America
Medical Systems, Inc. 2000 Restricted Stock Plan and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-146659) pertaining to the Span-America Medical
Systems, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and 1991 Stock Option Plan and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-146660) pertaining to
the  Span-America Medical System, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan of
our report dated December 18, 2008 with respect to the financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.





/s/  ELLIOTT DAVIS,
LLC





Greenville,
South Carolina


December
23, 2008
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2007...... 64.8 5.6 5.6 32.5 5.5 15.6 2.7 5.7 14.8 41.6 2008...... 77.6 5.6 7.4 40.2 3.8 20.7 2.5 5.7 15.1 54.4 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7 2007: Q1... 69.6 5.9 5.3 40.0 3.5 14.9 2.3 4.8 13.4 49.1  Q2... 61.7 3.7 4.1 35.0 5.4 13.5 3.4 6.8 16.2 35.3  Q3... 53.6 3.3 4.9 23.9 7.5 14.1 2.6 5.4 13.1 32.4  Q4... 74.4 9.3 8.3 31.2 5.5 20.1 2.7 5.7 16.3 49.7 2008: Q1... 83.7 6.6 5.9 47.7 3.2 20.3 2.3 5.6 14.0 61.9  Q2... 76.7 4.5 6.3 39.4 5.8 20.7 2.9 5.6 16.5 51.6  Q3... 69.1 3.3 7.6 35.3 3.9 19.0 2.4 5.3 12.8 48.5  Q4... 81.1 8.0 9.7 38.5 2.3 22.6 2.6 6.1 17.0 55.4 2009: Q1... 96.4 5.9 5.5 63.8 4.8 16.5 2.3 5.3 15.9 72.9  Q2... 61.9 3.8 4.2 37.9 2.9 13.2 2.7 5.6 14.9 38.7  Q3... 55.9 4.4 5.5 29.6 3.1 13.3 2.7 5.3 13.5 34.4  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
EXHIBIT
32.2





Certification
Pursuant To


Section
906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, John
Lackland, Chief Financial Officer of Power Efficiency Corporation, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:





1.
            the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June
      30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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.





Date:  August
14, 2009





BY:
              /s/ John LacklandJohn
      LacklandChief
      Financial Officer




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate
disclosure document.
#### Howard Dotson, Jr., et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 434]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), entered October 12, 2001, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Whether expert testimony is admissible on a particular matter is generally a mixed question of law and fact addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court *(see Selkowitz v County of Nassau,*45 NY2d 97, 101-102). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the defendants’ medical experts to testify as to whether the subject accident could have caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the experts did not testify about matters beyond their skill and expertise *(see generally Edgewater Apts. v Flynn,*216 AD2d 53, 54).

The trial court properly declined the plaintiffs’ request to charge the jury that they could recover under theories of aggravation of a preexisting condition or precipitation or activa*373tion of a latent disease or condition, as the evidence did not support such charges *(see Haase v Cole,*236 AD2d 860, 861).

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the trial court properly denied their motion for a mistrial. The trial court did not display any bias or prejudice against the plaintiffs’ counsel (see *Pallotta v West Bend Co.,*166 AD2d 637, 639).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and S. Miller, JJ., concur.
Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief.  The motion isoverruled and the petition is denied.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith

Filed:   February 15, 2002

Do Not Publish