alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

Amendment No. 1 
 to
the 
 Change of Control Agreement By and Between Beverly Bank, Beverly Financial, Inc. 

and 
 Stephen J. Britton

 The Change of Control Agreement by and between Beverly Cooperative Bank and Stephen J. Britton, effective April 18, 2013 (the
“Change of Control Agreement”), is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	For purposes of clarification and to add Beverly Financial, Inc. as a party to the Change of Control Agreement, the first paragraph of the Change of Control Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows contingent
upon the Conversion: 

 “This CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of
April 18, 2013 by and between BEVERLY BANK, a Massachusetts co-operative bank having its executive offices at 254 Cabot Street, Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 (“Bank”), BEVERLY FINANCIAL, INC. (“Company”) and
STEPHEN J. BRITTON (“Executive”).” 
  

	 	2.	Section 8A (Guaranty) is added to the Change of Control Agreement, contingent upon and effective as of the date of the Conversion: 


“Section 8A. Guaranty. 

Contingent upon and effective as of the date of the Conversion, Beverly Financial, Inc. hereby agrees to guarantee the payment of all amounts,
and the performance of all other obligations, due from the Bank in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. For the purpose of this Section 8A, “Conversion” shall mean the reorganization of Beverly Financial, MHC from a mutual
holding company to Beverly Financial, Inc., a stock holding company form of organization.” 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and the Company have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the
Change of Control Agreement By and Between Beverly Bank, Beverly Financial, Inc. and Stephen J. Britton to be executed and the Officer has hereunto set his hand, all on the dates set forth below. 

 

							
	OFFICER	 		 	
				
	
                    
	 		 	By:	 	 
	Date	 		 		 	Stephen J. Britton

  

							
	BEVERLY BANK	 		 	
				
	                    	 		 	By:	 	 
	Date	 		 		 	Duly Authorized Officer of Beverly Bank

  

							
	BEVERLY FINANCIAL, MHC	 		 	
				
	                    	 		 	By:	 	 
	Date	 		 		 	Duly Authorized Officer of Beverly Financial, MHC
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Nayna Networks, Inc., on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Naveen S. Bisht,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

Date: August 19, 2005              /s/ Naveen S. Bisht
                                   --------------------------------------
                                       Naveen S. Bisht
                                       Principal Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 7, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

133974 (16) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

JOSEPH BAZZETTA, #204987 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 133974 

 CoA: 275989 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $85.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$290.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

June 7, 2007 

Clerk
Appeal Reinstated, Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed , and Memorandum

Opinion filed September 12, 2019
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00692- CV

ENERGY STRATEGIC ADVISORY SERVICES LLC AND BLUESCAPE

ENERGY PARTNERS LLC , Appellants

V.
ENTERPRISES PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC AND ACADIAN GAS

PIPELINE SYSTEM, Appellees
On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016-60848A

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an interlocutory appeal from an order signed July 30, 2018. We abated the appeal on November 26, 2018, on the parties’ joint motion so that they could pursue settlement. On September 4, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1.2

We reinstate the appeal, grant the joint motion to dismiss, and dismiss the appeal.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
News United States Air Force
 BLUE: Episode 25 Pilot PipelinePublished June 28, 2018
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                
The Air Force’s pilot shortage is a complex issue, but when the Air Force starts seeing the signs that they need to do something different, Airmen innovate through technology and processes. Take a journey through the pilot pipeline to see solutions Airmen have implemented in each fighter-pilot training stage.
Want to learn more about pilot training? Check out this historical video:**Yesterday’s Air Force: Pilot Training**pilot 



pipeline 



BLUE 



Air Force TV
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2614 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2614

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 
                                 2012.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ROLLOVER OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN AIRLINE CARRIER BANKRUPTCY.

    (a) Extension of Time To File Claim for Refund.--Section 1106(a)(3) 
of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (26 U.S.C. 408 note) is 
amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2015''.
    (b) Definitions and Special Rules.--Section 1106(c) of such Act is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(i), by inserting ``or filed on 
        November 29, 2011,'' after ``2007,''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(B)--
                    (A) by striking ``terminated or'' and inserting 
                ``terminated,''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, or was frozen effective 
                November 1, 2012'' after ``Pension Protection Act of 
                2006''.

            Passed the Senate December 10, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2614

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend certain provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 
                                 2012.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 233 Referred in House (RFH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 233

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 815 County Road 23 in Tyrone, New York, as the ``Specialist 
               Christopher Scott Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST CHRISTOPHER SCOTT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 815 County Road 23 in Tyrone, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Specialist Christopher Scott Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Christopher Scott Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate August 1, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Earl *v.*State.

Opinion delivered October 23, 1922.

1. Intoxicating liquors — indictment for having unregistered still. — An allegation in an indictment under Acts 1921, p. 372, § 2, prohibiting the possession of an unregistered still regardless of intention as to its use, that the still was kept for use in the production of spirits was surplusage, and did not affect the validity of the indictment.

2. Criminal law — presumption from absence of bill of exceptions., — In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the court will assume that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and th'at no error occurred in the proceedings.

*287Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, *John Brizsolara,*Judge;

affirmed.

*Wallace Bourland,*for appellee.

McCulloch, C. J.

Appellant was convicted under an indictment couched in the following language (omitting the caption and formal conclusion):

“The said defendant,’ "Will Earl, in the county, district and State aforesaid, on the 5th .day of December, A. D. 1921, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously have and keep in his possession a still for the purpose of using same for the production of distilled spirits, without registering the same with the proper United States officers as required by law.”

The record of the trial was not preserved by a bill of exceptions, and we can only review the record presented for the purpose of determining whether or not error appears upon its face.

The only ground urged for reversal is that the indictment does not state a public offense.

The statute under which the indictment was preferred reads as follows:

“Sec. 2. No person shall keep in his possession any stillworm or still without registering the same with the proper United States officer, and no person shall set up, to be used as a distillery, any stillworm or substitute therefor, and a still or substitute therefor, such as a kettle, washpot, metal tank, or any other vessel of any kind, for the purpose of using same, or which, after being so set up, may be used for the production of distilled spirits.” Acts 1921, p. 372.

The contention is that the indictment is defective and not in conformity with the statute in that it contains the charge that the unregistered still was kept for use in the production of distilled spirits.

Conceding that such defect can b.e raised here for the first time, the ground of attack upon the indictment is untenable. It is true that the statute makes it an offense for a person to keep an unregistered still or stillworm in 'possession, regardless of intention as to its use, but the *288additional charge that it was kept for the purpose of using same in the produetion of spirits was mere surplusage, and did not affect the validity of the indictment on the charge óf keeping an unregistered still.

We must assume, in the absence of a bill of exceptions setting forth the record of the trial, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and that no error in the proceedings occurred..

Affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 AF Week in PhotosPublished July 20, 2018
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                This week's photos feature Airmen from around the globe involved in activities supporting expeditionary operations and defending America. This weekly feature showcases the men and women of the Air Force.air 



force 



Week 



In 



Photos 



2018 



Aircraft 



Airmen 



C-130 



F-22 



drones 



light 



show 



airlift 



interoperability 



refuel 



combat 



training 



OIR
ERNST & YOUNG

					**Ernst & Young LLP			Phone: (312) 879 2000
					Sears Tower			www.ey.com

					233 South Wacker Drive

					Chicago, Illinois 60606 6301

Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance

With Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
*Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*
Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors

LaSalle Bank Corporation

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report titled *Report of**Management*, that except for noncompliance with the minimum servicing standard for escrow funds, ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. (AAMG, a wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle Bank Corporation) complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (USAP) during the year ended December 31, 2002. Management is responsible for AAMG's compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertions about AAMG's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about AAMG's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on AAMG's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion, that except for noncompliance with the minimum servicing standard for escrow funds, AAMG complied with the aforementioned requirements during the year ended December 31, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the board of directors, management, and AAMG's private investors and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

 
***Ernst & Young LLP

 

January 20, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

A Member Practice of Ernst & Young Global
+*****
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2702 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2702

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the social 
 security number of the student and the employer identification number 
 of the educational institution for purposes of education tax credits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2014

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the social 
 security number of the student and the employer identification number 
 of the educational institution for purposes of education tax credits.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Education Tax Fraud Prevention 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 
              REQUIRED FOR EDUCATION TAX CREDITS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 25A(g) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``taxpayer identification number'' and 
        inserting ``social security number'', and
            (2) by inserting ``, and the employer identification number 
        of any institution to which qualified tuition and related 
        expenses were paid with respect to such individual,'' after 
        ``such individual''.
    (b) Omission Treated as Mathematical or Clerical Error.--
Subparagraph (J) of section 6213(g)(2) of such Code is amended by 
striking ``TIN'' and inserting ``social security number and employer 
identification number''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. MOODY

No. 64A96-2

Case below: Davidson County Superior Court

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Davidson County, denied 20 December 2000.
#### JOHN L. MILLING AND JULIEANN MILLING, HIS WIFE v. JOHN MAKRIDAKIS D/B/A MAKRIS BROS., ROLAND SCHARFSPITZ AND VERCESI AND SCHARFSPITZ, ARCHITECTS.

March 20, 1985.

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvidently granted (see 97 *N.J.*682);

It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed.
|                                |
|--------------------------------|
| Collateral Management Services |

|   | a) | A review of the Company's activities and performance under the Title Administration Agreement dated as of February 5, 2002 between triVIN and AHFC during the period commencing April 1, 2010 through and including March 31, 2011 has been conducted under our supervision, and; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b) | To the best of my knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligations under the Title Administration Agreement dated as of February 5, 2002 between triVIN and AHFC in all material respects throughout the period commencing April 1, 2010 through and including March 31, 2011. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | DealerTrack Collateral Management Services |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                                       |
|   | By                                         | /s/ Tony Panganinban |
|   |                                       |   |
|   |                                       | Name: Tony Panganiban |
|   |                                       | Title: Vice President, Finance |
|   |                                       | Signed as of May 26, 2011 |

----
#### Comstock *v.*Bayard and others.

Where in a suit against three, for the recovery of money, two suffer judgment by default, and the third defends the suit and has a verdict in his favor, he is entititled to costs against the plaintiff under section 305 of the code.

April 25, 1850.

Thes was a suit against Bayard, Brinkerhoff and Weeks, to ¡recover the proceeds of goods alleged to have been left with them as partners, for sale. Bayard denied his liability. The other two defendants suffered judgment to go)by default. On the trial, there was a verdict for Bayard, who now claims costs.

By the Court.

The 304th section of the code allows costs of course to the plaintiff, in an action like this, where he shall recover fifty dollars or more. Section 305 gives costs to the defendant in the same actions, unless the plaintiff be entitled to costs therein. Section 306 permits the court to grant costs to defendants not united in interest or in their defences, who succeed, when the plaintiff recovers against others. This section *706applies to other actions, than those specified in the two previous; sections.

If the costs rested in our discretion, we would grant them to Bayard; but he is clearly entitled to them by the code.. This, follows from the- nature of the action and the fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to costs against him. Section 305 gives the defendant costs in such case, and it applies to any defendant prevailing in the suit against the plaintiff.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 99.1

                         Certification of CEO 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 Kensington Bankshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
Gerald K. Archibald, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
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) 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.


                                               /s/ Gerald K. Archibald
                                              _________________________
                                                   Gerald K. Archibald
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   March 28, 2003