alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.6.5**

 

EXTENSIONOFEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

**EXTENSION AGREEMENT,**this29**th** day of July 2005,by and between **A**CCESS**B**ANK (Bank) formerly known as **F**IRST**B**ANK, afederally chartered stock savings bank and **A**CCESS **A**NYTIME **B**AN**C**ORP, INC. (Company) andKenneth J. Huey, Jr. (Officer).

 

The Officer is Executive Vice President and a Director of the Bank andhas been duly elected to these positions. Also, the Officer is Chief FinancialOfficer and a Director of the Company and has been duly elected to these positions.

 

The Bank/Company desires to amend the term of a previous EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT EXTENSION by and between the Officer and the Bank/Company dated the23**th** day of August 2001,to be effective from August 1, 2005 and shall continue for a period of oneyear through August 1, 2006, with a salary at a rate of not less than$145,000 per annum. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

 
| **A**CCESS**B**ANK | **A**CCESS **A**NYTIME  **B**AN**C**ORP, INC. |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|               |                                               |   |   |
|               |                                               |   |   |
| By:                | /s/ Robert  Chad Lydick                            |   | By: | /s/ Norman  R. Corzine |   |
|               | Robert “Chad” Lydick, Chairman           |   |  Norman R. Corzine, Chairman |
|               | Board of Directors                                 |   |  Board of Directors |
|               |                                               |   |
|               |                                               |   |
| OFFICER            |                                               |   |
|               |                                               |   |
| By:                | /s/ Kenneth  J. Huey                               |   |   |   |

 

----
*174 La.*806

#### JOHNSON v. GIFFORD-HILL & CO., Inc.

No. 31001.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 25, 1932.

Peterman, Dear & Peterman, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Overton & Hunter, of Alexandria, for ap-pellee.

ST. PAUL, J.

This is a suit for damages caused by the choking up with sand from defendant’s wash gravel mill of a certain little creek or brook which once flowed perennially along the border of plaintiff’s property and furnished him with water for his crops and cattle, but now goes dry in the summer months when its waters are most needed.

The case was tried, and the testimony covers 135 typewritten pages; which it is impossible to analyze or summarize to any useful purpose.

Suffice it to say that it is hardly seriously 'disputed that the brook or creek has been considerably choked up with the sand washing down from the gravel works, and that plaintiff has suffered some sort of detriment to his land and crops by reason thereof.

But plaintiff takes his damages too seriously. He estimates that he planted crops of corn and cane from which he should have netted some $900 or $1,000 (on five acres), but actually netted only half that sum. These estimates are entirely too speculative to furnish a basis for an award in damages. He claims that an old steam pump, and a piping system, and an old syrup mill, are a complete loss to him because he cannot use them for want of a water supply. But the answer to that is that a water supply can be obtained from a well of sufficient capacity; and accordingly bis damage in that respect can be measured exactly by getting the cost of drilling. such a well, which, however, does not appear from this record. And, what is more to the point, but much the same thing (since all the trouble, and tbe only trouble, with plaintiff’s land, and mill and crops, is the want of water), plaintiff claims that Ms land has depreciated in value to the extent of $1,000.

The trial judge thought that plaintiff would be compensated by an award of $500.

In tbis we see no manifest error. The trial judge saw'and heard the witnesses and knows the land and its crop possibilities; and doubtless was of opinion that the award he gave would suffice to provide a well of sufficient capacity and allow something over for plaintiff’s disappointment over his crops. If there be any error in tbis estimate, we are unable to point it out.

Defendant has filed in this court a plea of 'prescription of one year. It is not well founded. Sand was still being drained into the creek some 90 days before the filing of this suit.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

OVERTON, J„ recused.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Cosmo Communications Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
Horak, Chief Executive 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; and





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





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





:
                /S/ Peter HorakPeter
      HorakChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:
      June 29, 2010
##### 



SAMSON BELAIR/DELOITTE & TOUCHE, S.E.N.C.


Assurance and Advisory Services


1 Place Ville-Marie


Suite 3000


Montréal QC H3B 4T9


Canada


Samson Bélair Deloitte & Touche Logo

Tel.: (514) 393-7115

Fax: (514) 390-4113


www.deloitte.ca


Auditors Consent

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street N.W.


Washington, DC 20549


USA


We hereby consent to the inclusion in the annual
Report on Form 20-F of Campbell Resources Inc. (the
Corporation) for the year ended December 31,
2002 of our report dated February 25, 2003, relating to the
Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation as at and
for the year ended December 31, 2002, which appears under
Item 17 of the aforementioned Annual Report.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference
of our report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(registration Nos. 33-28296, 33-91824, 333-93063 and
333-6236) pertaining to the Corporations Employee
Incentive Plan and Directors Stock Option Plan.

/s/ Samson Bélair Deloitte & Touche

Chartered Accountants


Montreal, Canada

May 14, 2003


Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Logo

2
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2003...... 30.74 67.77 36.98 21.44 33.40 64.60 3.75 14.81 47.26 276.39 2004...... 39.38 68.02 52.88 25.95 47.58 110.83 3.81 14.82 46.26 360.52 2005...... 40.42 69.13 47.05 26.41 63.49 99.94 3.83 14.62 47.14 333.02 2006...... 49.71 65.53 59.36 32.84 74.12 138.48 4.90 14.96 46.68 340.26 2007...... 48.27 64.93 50.33 36.27 47.41 117.22 5.35 15.11 46.62 302.38 2008...... 58.61 76.08 70.62 44.10 45.70 136.09 5.49 15.03 46.79 335.20 2009...... 55.71 68.17 58.34 46.97 47.09 107.13 5.37 14.90 47.16 358.13 2006: Q3... 51.48 81.93 89.64 26.57 50.49 172.18 5.41 15.01 45.16 377.96  Q4... 53.61 80.54 57.82 33.44 71.05 155.58 5.56 14.96 48.79 341.00 2007: Q1... 58.33 76.05 54.29 50.88 32.69 120.07 5.34 15.10 47.15 296.76  Q2... 39.55 48.25 33.93 32.08 41.55 95.17 5.40 15.11 45.96 276.68  Q3... 42.93 42.18 63.99 28.28 62.22 108.75 5.26 15.19 45.88 296.12  Q4... 54.29 84.90 53.85 36.07 53.00 145.08 5.39 15.03 47.47 335.44 2008: Q1... 66.99 70.42 57.84 57.17 37.17 152.28 5.63 15.42 46.38 339.22  Q2... 53.03 64.25 58.32 39.04 59.60 127.92 5.40 14.76 46.37 310.75  Q3... 56.57 97.26 91.69 40.35 42.95 136.38 5.42 14.53 46.29 368.80  Q4... 58.67 82.63 77.87 41.38 39.40 131.00 5.55 15.40 47.93 328.69 2009: Q1... 73.87 67.25 59.90 72.04 50.22 112.97 5.38 14.98 48.10 384.54  Q2... 47.33 47.69 45.07 41.40 33.44 98.43 5.38 15.17 46.75 308.72  Q3... 44.03 66.51 85.58 32.07 41.81 93.60 5.31 14.78 46.66 318.34  Q4... 57.43 82.88 51.12 42.60 59.12 124.83 5.40 14.68 47.03 405.48 2010: Q1... 56.18 62.45 47.53 50.74 49.97 95.23 5.38 15.13 49.02 279.63  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.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1874

MARIO E. CASTRO; MAGDALENA CASTRO , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; CHARLES W. SCHARF; AKERMAN LLP; NATSAYI MAWERE; JOSEPH DEFAZIO; NEWREZ LLC, d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing; JACK NAVARRO; REAL TIME SOLUTIONS; ERIC C. GREEN; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BRIAN MOYNIHAN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Max O. Cogburn, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv
- 00264

- MOC

- DSC )

Submitted : February 23, 2021 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Mario E. Castro , Magdalena Castro , Appellants Pro Se. Bryan G. Scott , AKERMAN LLP , Winston

- Salem, North Carolina; Brian Allen Calub, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP , Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee s
.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mario E. Castro and Magdalena Castro seek to appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing their c ivil action . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases, pa rties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)( A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russe ll , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court entered its order on July 10, 2020

. The Castros filed the notice of appeal on August 11, 2020 . Because the Castros failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is cou rt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 95-50632

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

ALVIN LEE HARRISON Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE -- 

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(A-95-CV-27)

__________________________________________________

August 6, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having reviewed the record on appeal, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal. We find

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that some of Harrison’s claims had no

arguable basis in law. See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 24 (5th Cir. 1995). We further find that,
2

upon review de novo, the remainder of Harrison’s claims were properly dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th

Cir. 1995); Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1995); LaBounty v. Adler, 933

F.2d 121 (2nd Cir. 1991). Further, we find that the imposition of sanctions was not an abuse of

discretion given t hat Harrison filed this complaint in state court specifically to avoid the district

court’s order that he refrain fromfiling anymore frivolous claims. See Mayfield v. Kevenhagen, 941

F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1991).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 975 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 12, 2008.
    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the 
Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative from the State of California.
    Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the House as the Speaker may 
designate, together with such Members of the Senate as may be joined, be 
appointed to attend the funeral.
    Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House be authorized and directed 
to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of these 
resolutions and that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid out 
of applicable accounts of the House.
    Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and 
transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark 
of respect to the memory of the deceased.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

PFIP, LLC

Plaintiff ( s)

V .

Body Transit, Inc . dba Rascals Fitness and Marc S . Polignano

Defendant(s)

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

LOCAL RULE 7 .5

Civil Case No .

[This form is to be completed and filed only by parties that are

nongovernmental corporations or partnerships . Check the appropriate

box(es) . ]

Nongovernmental Corporatio n

The filing party, a nongovernmental corporation, identifies the following parent

corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its

stock:

❑ The filing party identifies the following publicly held corporation with which a

merger agreement with the party exists :

OR

Case 1:07-cv-00365-JM Document 2 Filed 11/05/07 Page 1 of 3
Partnership

The filing party, a partnership, identifies the following nongovernmental

corporate entity that holds an interest in said partnership, the corporate

partner's parent corporation, and any publicly held corporation that owns 10 %

or more of the corporate partner's stock:

The filing party identifies the following publicly held corporation that has a

merger agreement with the corporate partner :

O R

Nothing to Disclose

The filing party has none of the above .

Case 1:07-cv-00365-JM Document 2 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 3
Respectfully submitted ,

PFIP, LLC

Date: 11/5/2007 /s/Teresa C . Tucker

Teresa C . Tucker, Esq .

10071

Grossman Tucker Perreault & Pfleger PLLC

55 South Commercial Stree t

Manchester, NH 03101

Phone 603-668-6560

E-Mail ttucker@gtpp .com

(the following need not be completed if submitted with civil complaint )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC E

I hereby certify that this Disclosure Statement was served on the following persons

on this date and in the manner specified herein :

Electronically Served Through ECF : [Names of Filing Users]

Conventionally Served : [Name and Address of Non-Filing Users] .

Date: 11/5/2007 /s/Teresa C . Tucker

Teresa C. Tucker, Esq .

10071

Grossman Tucker Perreault & Pfleger PLLC

55 South Commercial Stree t

Manchester, NH 03101

Phone 603-668-6560

E-Mail ttucker@gtpp .com

Case 1:07-cv-00365-JM Document 2 Filed 11/05/07 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32

ISONICS CORPORATION

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350  Principal Executive Officer

To my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2005, containing financial statements for the
period then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periods presented.

March 9,
2005

|/s/JAMES E. ALEXANDERJames E. Alexander
Chief Executive Officer | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- | 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350  Principal Financial Officer

To my knowledge: the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2005, containing financial statements for the
period then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periods presented.

March 9,
2005

|/s/JOHN V. SAKYSJohn V. Sakys
Chief Financial Officer | 
|----------------------------------------------------- | 

---



QuickLinks
H. Res. 870 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 26, 2008. 

Whereas the Baltimore campus of the University of Maryland 

was founded in 1807; 

Whereas the School of Medicine was established in 1807, 

which makes it the first public and the fifth oldest medical school in the United States and the first to institute 

a residency training program in 1823; 

Whereas the School of Medicine is the founding school at the 

University of Maryland and is an integral part of the 11- 

campus University System of Maryland; 

Whereas at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, the 

School of Medicine serves as the foundation for a large 

academic health center that combines medical education, 

biomedical research, patient care, and community service; 

Whereas the University of Maryland School of Medicine is 

dedicated to providing excellence in biomedical education, 

basic and clinical research, quality patient care, and service to improve the health of the citizens of Maryland and 

beyond; 

Whereas the School of Medicine is committed to the education and training of M.D., Ph.D., graduate, physical 

therapy, rehabilitation science, and medical research technology students; 
2 

•HRES 870 EH 

Whereas the University of Maryland School of Medicine has 

played a crucial role in helping to meet Maryland’s health 

care needs and continues to recruit and develop faculty 

to serve as exemplary role models for students; 

Whereas in 1823, the medical school became the first teaching hospital in the Nation with the construction of the 

Baltimore Infirmary; and 

Whereas the University of Maryland School of Medicine has 

a legacy that has established a tradition of academic excellence, outstanding patient care, and ground-breaking 

research: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives— 

(1) congratulates the 200th Anniversary of the University of Maryland School of Medicine; 

(2) recognizes the achievements of the University of 

Maryland, Baltimore, and the School of Medicine in 

training local, State, and world leaders; and 

(3) recognizes the achievements of the University of 

Maryland School of Medicine for outstanding work in 

the community. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2968

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Devoil Stanley Hicks, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 30, 2001 Filed: December 5, 2001

___________ Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Devoil Stanley Hicks pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced Hicks to 360 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Hicks appealed from the sentence imposed by the district court and we remanded for resentencing in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See United States v. Hicks , No. 00-2400, 2000 WL 1872701, at *1 (8th Cir. Dec. 22, 2000) (unpublished per curiam opinion).-2- The district court resentenced Hicks to 204 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release, and Hicks appeals. On appeal, Hicks's counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Hicks has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing his indictment and sentence still violate Apprendi
. Without considering the effect of Hicks's verbal agreement at resentencing to waive his right to appeal his sentence (and to seek certain other postconviction relief) in exchange for a sentencing concession, we reject Hicks's appeal and affirm. Specifically, Hicks stipulated at resentencing to the sentence he received and thus he may not challenge it here. SeeUnited States v. Nguyen , 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995). Further, Hicks's sentence does not violate Apprendi because it is below the 240-month statutory maximum for a cocaine-base conspiracy without regard to drug quantity. See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado , 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1026 (2000). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find there are no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000049710-DEC-201208:18 AM