alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7

FORM OF

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED

SAVINGS INSTITUTE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

(Brouillard, Hull, Gervais, Dudas and Moran)

Effective January 1, 2005, the Amended and Restated Savings Institute Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the Plan) is hereby amended to add the
following Section 3.2:

3.2 Separation from Service.For purposes of Section 3.1 and 3.3 of this Plan, a
termination of employment shall mean a Separation from Service as defined under Section 409A of the Code. Section 409A defines a Separation of Service as a termination of a Participants services (whether as an employee or as an
independent contractor) to the Company and the Bank for reasons other than death or disability. Whether a Separation from Service has occurred shall be determined in accordance with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code based on whether
the facts and circumstances indicate that the Company, the Bank and the Participant reasonably anticipated that no further services would be performed after a certain date or that the level of bona fide services the Participant would perform after
such date (whether as an employee or as an independent contractor) would permanently decrease to no more than twenty percent (20%) of the average level of bona fide services performed (whether as an employee or an independent contractor) over
the immediately preceding thirty-six (36) month period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the
Bank and the Executive have caused this Amendment to be executed on the 17thday of December, 2008



|         |  |  |  |                                         
|-------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|ATTEST:  |  |  |  | SAVINGS INSTITUTE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
|         |  | 
|         |  |  |  |                                         
|         |  |  |  | For the Board of Directors              
|         |  | 
|WITNESS: |  |  |  | EXECUTIVE                               
|         |  | 
|         |  |  |  |
<PAGE>   1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 10-K, into HS Resources, Inc.'s previously
filed Registration Statement File Nos. 333-46195, 333-21221, 33-61400 and
33-91934.






                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                                         -----------------------
                                                             Arthur Andersen LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 31, 1998
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed February 13, 2018. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00907-CV

____________

IN THE ESTATE OF FOREST BENNETT SMITH, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 428751-401

ABATEMENT ORDER

On February 6, 2018, the parties notified this court that they had reached an 

agreement to settle the issues on appeal, and requested that the appeal be abated for 

completion of the settlement. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the 

following order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket until April 11, 2018. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active 

docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the appeal or other 
dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate 

the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Jamison.
**Subsidiaries      of Vuance Ltd. as of June 20, 2008**

| **Name**** ****of**** ****Subsidiary**      |   | **Jurisdiction**** ****of**** ****Organization** |                           | **Percent**** ****Owned** |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                                                  |   |                                                       |                           |                           |   |
| Vuance                  Inc.(Formerly SuperCom, Inc.) |   |                                                       | United                  States |                           |   | 100 | % |
| SuperCom                  Asia Pacific Ltd.           |   |                                                       | Hong                  Kong     |                           |   | 100 | % |
| SuperCom                  Slovakia A.S.               |   |                                                       | Slovakia                       |                           |   | 66 | % |
| VUANCE                  - RFID Inc.                   |   |                                                       | United                  States |                           |   | 100 | %*  |
| S.B.C.                  Aviation Ltd.                 |   |                                                       | Israel                         |                           |   | 100 | % |

----
No
. CR

- 15

- 398

DAMIEN FORD APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 7, 2016
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT, AND MOTION TO HOLD IN AVAIL [ MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 46CR

- 12

- 438 ]
HONORABLE KIRK DOUGLAS JOHNSON , JUDGE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT

.

PER CURIAMIn 2013, appellant Damien Ford was found guilty by a Miller County jury of firstdegree battery, second-degree battery, and aggravated assault for the beating death of his
li ve
- in girlfriend’s twenty -three-month-old son. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 624 months’ imprisonment. On October 29, 2014, t he Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Ford v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 576. The mandate issued on November 18, 2015.
On January 23, 2015, Ford filed in the trial court a verified, untimely pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2015), arguing eleven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief on the untimely petition, and an appeal was lodged. Now before us is Ford’s motion for extension of time, motion for transcript, and motion to hold in avail. Because it is clear from the record that Ford could not prevail on appeal, we dismiss the appeal, and the motions are therefore moot. An appeal from an orderthat denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it

is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Williams v. State , 2014 Ark. 70 (per curiam). Under Rule 37.2(c)(ii), if an appeal was taken of the judgment of conviction, a petition claiming relief under Rule 37.1 must be filed in the trial court within sixty days of the date the mandate is issued by the appellate court. The mandate in Ford’s direct appeal

was issued on November 18, 2015, meaning a postconviction petition pursuant to the Rule
must have been fi led by January 19, 2015. 1 As the trial court correctly noted, Ford’s January 23, 2015 petition was untimely. Because it is clear from the record that Ford could not prevail on appeal, we dismiss the appeal, and the motions are therefore moot

. Appeal dismissed; motions moot.
W YNNE , J., not participating.

1 The actual date for Ford to file his Rule 37 petition would have been January 17, 2015, but that date fell on a Saturday; therefore, the last day to file his Rule 37 petition would have been the following business day, Monday, January 19, 2015. Ark. R. App. P.

– Crim. 17 (2015).
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Cogent, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Kim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Thiscertification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Date: March 3, 2009
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of NexGen Biofuels Ltd.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
Ram Ajjarapu, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my
knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, I believe 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                               NEXGEN BIOFUELS LTD

November 13, 2008                              By: /s/ J. Ram Ajjarapu
                                               -----------------------
                                               J RAM AJJARAPU
                                               INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**CHRISTOPHER W. REED,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**KEVIN A. HESS, S.J., COURT OF**

**COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 96 MM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 26th day of September, 2016, the Application f or Leave to File** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition is** DENIED

**.**

**The Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.**
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The meeting announced below concerns Cooperative Research Agreements in the area of Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishing Safety and Health Research, PAR-14-175, initial review.

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

## Times and Dates

1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., January 21, 2015 (Closed).

1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., January 22, 2015 (Closed).

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters for Discussion:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishing Safety and Health Research, PAR-14-175”.                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Nina Turner, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC/NIOSH, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV, 26506, Telephone: (304) 285-5976.                    

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2014-27838 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MICHAEL ALPHONSE POTTER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 929 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-134730, 333-76817, and 333-41863) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-134002, 333-121868 and 333-112464) of Mechanical Technology, Incorporated of our report dated February 28, 2008 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Buffalo, New York

February 28, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7587

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY MAILLARD, a/k/a Spice, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-214-2) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 12, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Maillard, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), the order from which Maillard appeals was entered on the district court’s docket September 3, 1998. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey John Maillard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Maillard , Nos. CR-94-163; CA-98-214-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 3, 1998). * We dispense withoral 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 23, 2022

NO. 03-22-00232-CV

Phillip G. Scott, Appellant

v.

Sergeant Haines, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER AND TRIANA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record, it 

appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in 

this Court and in the court below.
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0606
I X LIIINE STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER I TOULOUSE,

Defendant and Appellant. 

### MAR 0 8 2022 Bovven Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Coun

. tr4te ryf IVIneNtan ORDER

Counsel for Appellant Christopher I Toulouse filed a motion and briefasking tobe allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that he has been unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Toulouse responded to counsel's brief and objected to counsel's motion. The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, andAnders. We have considered the argumentsraised by counsel and by Toulouse in his response. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that could be raised in a direct appeal ofToulouse's conviction in this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord and to the appellant personally‘1 , 1_, DATEDthis s".

" ----day ofMarch, 2022. ChiefJustice 03/08/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0606

# ,24 f
1

 In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1114V

Filed: August 22, 2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

GLENDA NEHER, *

* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman

Petitioner, *

 * Joint Stipulation on Damages;

v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Guillain-

 * Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

John R. Howie, Jr., Howie Law, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Robert P. Coleman III, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1

On October 2, 2015, Glenda Neher (“Petitioner”) petitioned for compensation under the 

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012). Petitioner

alleged that the administration of the Influenza (“Flu”) vaccine, on January 11, 2013, caused her

to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).

The parties recently filed a stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding 

compensation. Respondent denies that the Flu vaccine is the cause of Petitioner’s alleged GBS

or any other injury. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as 

 1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, 

the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims, in accordance with the purposes espoused in the E-Government Act of 2002. See 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). Each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any 

information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in 

substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the 

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 

18(b).
2

Appendix A. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of 

the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive a “lump sum payment of $63,573.31 in 

the form of a check payable to [P]etitioner.” Appendix A at 2. They also specify that this 

“amount represents compensation for all remaining damages that would be available under 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).” Id.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. 

Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation. 

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ 

stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

 Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master

 2 Entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek 

review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUEZHEN YANG, AKA Yue Zhen

Yang,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72898

Agency No. A099-399-966

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 13, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Yuezhen Yang petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

decision denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

FILED

AUG 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition. Because the parties

are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. Under

the REAL ID Act, an inconsistency can support an adverse credibility finding even

if it does not go to the heart of the claim. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043

(9th Cir. 2010). Here, Yang testified that she did not organize a protest until May

2005, well after her firing. But an August 2004 letter stated that factory officials

were firing Yang because she was detained for organizing sit-in demonstrations. 

The immigration judge (IJ) considered Yang’s explanation for this inconsistency

and concluded that Yang did not explain the discrepancy. Yang’s explanation that

a factory leader concocted a reason to fire her that directly corresponded to events

that occurred nearly a year later was neither reasonable nor plausible. Therefore,

the IJ did not need to discuss her reasons for rejecting the explanation in greater

detail. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ did not need to

offer “express, point-by-point rejection” when petitioner “did not offer a

reasonable and plausible explanation for the discrepancies”). Given this

inconsistency, and in light of the total circumstances, the agency’s adverse

credibility determination was reasonable. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044. Absent

credible testimony, Yang could not establish her eligibility for asylum or

2
withholding of removal. She submitted no additional evidence that would compel

the conclusion that she is entitled to relief under Convention Against Torture. 

PETITION DENIED.

3