alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3
                             AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
                          1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN OF
                                  AMETEK, INC.

         WHEREAS, AMETEK, Inc. has adopted the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of
AMETEK, Inc. (the "Plan"); and


         WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Plan permits the Committee, as defined in
the Plan (the "Committee") to amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Committee now desires to amend the Plan in certain
respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1. Section 13 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the second
sentence of the second paragraph and substituting therefor the following:
                   "Moreover, the Committee may, in its sole discretion,
                  provide, with respect to an Option or Rights granted to any
                  individual (and either at the time of grant of such Option or
                  Rights or by an amendment thereafter to any such outstanding
                  Option or Rights), that the post-termination or post-death
                  exercise period shall be for a period of time specified by the
                  Committee which is longer than the period which would
                  otherwise apply pursuant to this Section 13, but in no event
                  beyond the expiration of the stated term of such Option or
                  Rights."

         2. The provisions of this Amendment No. 2 shall become effective as of
April 1, 2000 and may apply to Option and Rights granted or outstanding on or
after that date, including, without limitation, outstanding Options and Rights
which were granted prior to that date.

<PAGE>   2

         3. Except to the extent hereinabove set forth, the Plan shall remain in
full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has caused this Amendment to be
executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company, and its corporate seal to
be affixed, as of the 22 day of March, 2000.

                                                  AMETEK, Inc.
                                                  By: /s/ John J. Molinelli
                                                  -------------------------
ATTEST:
 /s/ Donna F. Winquist
 ---------------------
(SEAL)
* 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.

1 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30949 Summary Calendar GEORGE A. BYNUM, JR. Plaintiff-Appellant
v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:07-CV-915 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * George Bynum, Jr., federal prisoner # 06013-078, appeals the 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The magistrate judge construed his complaint as raising claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivensv. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 1 and recommended dismissal. Bynum filed United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 14, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-30949

2SeeSobranes Recovery Pool I LLC v. Todd & Hughes Constr. Corp., 509 F.3d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 2007).

3See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 objections. The district court rejected Bynum’s objections, and dismissed Bynum’s claims for the reasons given by the magistrate. We address our jurisdiction sua sponte

. 2 By our reading of the pleadings, Bynum asserted a Federal Tort Claims Act claim. We note also that Bynum filed administrative claims for FTCA relief, and that the Government offered to settle those claims. The magistrate did not address the FTCA claims, nor did the district courtwhorelied upon the magistrate’s recommendations. This loose string strips thejudgment ofthe required finality. 3 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, leaving Bynum’s FTCA claims in the district court’s hands. DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58578-58579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC08-161-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

October 1, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 30, 2008, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company, LLC filed a response to the Chief Accountant's September 16, 
2008, Data Request.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the

[[Page 58579]]

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#05434057464a6b696c6b60567075756a777145636077662b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adebe8ffeee2c3c1c4c3c8fed8ddddc2dfd9edcbc8dfce83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on October 22, 2008.

 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23623 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02483-RPM

BENJAMIN VALDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

APOLLO GROUP, INC., an Arizona corporation,

INSIGHT SCHOOLS, INC., an Oregon corporation

d/b/a Insight School of Colorado and Insight School Colorado at Julesburg,

now a subsidiary of Iowa College Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation,

in turn a subsidiary of Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

____________________________________________________________________________________

On December 8, 2011, the defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended

complaint by asserting that the second claim for relief in the amended complaint filed in this court on

November 21, 2011, fails to state a claim for relief under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Upon

review of the amended complaint, the plaintiff’s opposition to the motion and the defendants’ reply it is

ORDERED that the partial motion to dismiss is denied.

DATED: December 30th , 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

_________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02483-RPM Document 20 Filed 12/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This  Amendment No. 1 is made to that certain  Employment  Agreement  dated
July 1, 1991 (the "Employment  Agreement") between Conseco, Inc. (the "Company")
and Donald F. Gongaware ("Executive").

     NOW THEREFORE,  in consideration  of the mutual covenants  contained herein
and in the  Employment  Agreement,  Company and Executive  agree as follows:

     1. Section 2 of the Employment  Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety
to read as follows:

     "2.  Term.  The  effective  date of this  Agreement  shall be July 1, 1991.
Subject to the provisions for termination as provided in Section 10 hereof,  the
term of this  Agreement  shall be the period  beginning July 1, 1991, and ending
December 31, 2001 (hereinafter called the "Basic Employment Period")." 2. Except
as modified by this  Amendment  and any previous  addendum or  amendment  not in
conflict herewith,  the parties confirm that the Employment Agreement remains in
full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the Company and Executive have executed this Amendment
to be effective the 12th day of March, 1996.

                                     CONSECO, INC.



                                     By: /s/ Stephen C. Hilbert
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Stephen C. Hilbert,
                                         Chairman of the Board

                                                "Company"



                                          /s/ Donald F. Gongaware
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Donald F. Gongaware

                                             "Executive"
Order entered March 11, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01574-CV

CALIFCO, LLC, Appellant

V.

DONALDSON PROPERTIES LTD., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-11972-K

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s March 10, 2015 unopposed second motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by MARCH 27, 2015. We caution appellant that 

no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Case 1:11-cv-01992-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01992-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01992-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01992-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
Case 1:11-cv-01992-LTB Document 4 Filed 08/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification**

 

The undersigned officer ofNatrol, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  This certification is provided solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the“Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification(A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act,or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actor the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.

 

 
| Date: August  14, 2003 | Name:  | /s/ Dennis  R. Jolicoeur |                                          |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |                     | Name: Dennis  R. Jolicoeur                    |
|                   |   |                     | Title: Chief  Financial Officer and Executive |
|                   |   |                     | Vice  President                               |
|                        |        |                          |                                               |  |  |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00376-WJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC.,

2. BRANDON RICHTER, and

3. TOR OLSON,

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER RETURNING GOVERNMENT’S EXHIBIT NOS. 1000 and 1001

 During the jury trial in the above-captioned case the Government submitted for

the record Exhibit Nos. 1000 and 1001. Exhibit No. 1000 was described as the hard

copy of the video-taped deposition of Edmond Fung, with the portions that were actually

played in court indicated; and Exhibit No. 1001 was described as the hard copy of the

video-taped deposition of Gary Tam, with the portions that were actually played in court

indicated.

Color copies of the Government Exhibit Nos. 1000 and 1001 were made, by the

courtroom deputy, for defense counsel and given to Lucy H. Deakins, Esq. on the 13th

day of trial, December 19, 2012.

The court does not keep original exhibits from hearings or trials. Therefore,

Government’s original Exhibit Nos. 1000 and 1001 shall be returned to Government’s

Case 1:11-cr-00376-WJM Document 283 Filed 01/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

counsel, along with a copy of this Order. These exhibits are subject to the same

Stipulation and Order Regarding Custody Of Exhibits entered on December 21, 2012.

Dated this 9th day of January 2013.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________ 

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00376-WJM Document 283 Filed 01/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JAMES WILLIAM DAVIS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 20 22

- 1782

April 26, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Gregory G. Groger

, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Andrea M. Norgard, Special

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Samuel R.

Mandelbaum, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; a nd Cerese Crawford

Taylor, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ta mpa (substituted as counsel

of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN

- YOUAKIM , and ATKINSON , JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10322

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

THE STATE OF GEORGIA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

BRIAN-SCOTT NETTLES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00266-RWS

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10322 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 03/15/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10322

Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Brian-Scott Nettles, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order remanding to state court a case in which he was 

charged with various state criminal offenses. We lack jurisdiction 

to review the remand order because it was based on the district 

court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c)-(d); New v. Sports & Recreation, 114 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 

(11th Cir. 1997); Whole Health Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. v. Humana Med Plan, Inc., 254 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). 

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 24-10322 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 03/15/2024 Page: 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.: 11-cv-02364-REB-MEH

KANDACE OLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NE COLORADO CELLULAR, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 16, 2011.

On timely motion and in the interest of justice, Plaintiff’s Motion to File First Amended

Complaint [filed December 15, 2011; docket #15] is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed

to file the First Amended Complaint, found at docket #15-1. Defendant shall file an answer or other

response to the First Amended Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Case 1:11-cv-02364-REB-MEH Document 17 Filed 12/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify
that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                   |  |  |  |                                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ BRUCE W. TAYLOR                    
|                   |  |  |  | Bruce W. Taylor Chief Executive
Officer
|                   |  | 
|Dated: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ ROBIN VANCASTLE                    
|                   |  |  |  | Robin VanCastle Chief Financial
Officer



53
#### LAUREL SPORTS ACTIVITIES, INC., RESPONDENT, v. U. C. C. OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT.

Submitted October 31, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

Eor the appellant, *Charles A. Malloy (Herman D. Ringle,*of counsel).

For the respondent, *William K. Flanagan.*

Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bodine in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 8

*For reversal*— Donges, Heher, Colie, Eastwood, JJ. 4.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Queen Mining
Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31,
2006 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Dated: May 15, 2006 | /s/ Lutz Klingmann                       
|------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                    | Lutz Klingmann                           
|                    | President and Principal Financial Officer

---
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23449]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special emphasis Panel, October 27, 2008, 8 a.m. to 
October 28, 2008, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register 
on September 25, 2008, 73 FR 55517-55519.
    The meeting will be held November 12, 2008, 4 p.m. to November 14, 
2008, 8 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: September 26, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory--Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-23449 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Sure Way NY, Inc., as Assignee of Dixin, Marla, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant.Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Duane Frankson of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered May 17, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs. </p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor does not qualify as an eligible injured person, as the assignor was not a "family member" of the insured as defined in the Florida insurance policy at issue. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that, at a minimum, it had established its prima facie case. By order entered May 17, 2016, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiff's cross motion.</p><p>Upon the record presented, we find that defendant sufficiently established that plaintiff's assignor did not reside in the household of the Florida policyholder, but, rather, in Brooklyn, and thus was not a "family member" of the insured as defined by the insurance policy at issue. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (<i>see Zuckerman v City of New York</i>, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Consequently, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>complaint was properly granted. </p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: April 15, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>