alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          79,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,037,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,760,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,603,000
<PP&E>                                       3,761,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,923,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,329,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,739,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,583,000
<COMMON>                                     3,103,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,262,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,329,000
<SALES>                                      2,586,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,586,000
<CGS>                                        1,807,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,271,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (22,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (672,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (672,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (672,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certifications**

I, Jeffrey D. Cushman, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of BancTec, Inc;

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report.

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation, and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions).

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 
| Date:  August 14, 2006 |     |                                                 |
|-----------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                        | * * | *Jeffrey D. Cushman*                                 |
| * *                    | * * | *Senior Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
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 Security National Financial Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen M. Sill, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my
knowledge:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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, 2009
              
              /s/ Stephen M.
      SillStephen M.
      SillVice President,
      Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer











---
Summary of Horace Mann Educators Corporation



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary of Horace Mann Educators Corporation 
 Named Executive Officer Annualized Salary

 The table below summarizes the annualized salaries of Horace Mann Educators Corporation’s (the “Company”) Chief
Executive Officer and the other four highest compensated Executive Officers, as defined in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, (collectively the “Named Executive Officers”). These salaries may be
changed at any time at the discretion of the Compensation Committee and/or Board of Directors of the Company. These salaries do not include short-term and long-term incentive compensation amounts, the Company’s contributions to defined
contribution plans and the Company’s contributions to other employee benefit programs on behalf of the Named Executive Officers. 
  

				
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	Annualized Salary
	 Louis G. Lower II
 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	640,008.00
	 Peter H. Heckman
 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	410,000.00
	 Douglas W. Reynolds
 Executive Vice President – Insurance Operations
	  	$	400,000.00
	 Frank D’Ambra III
 Senior Vice President – Life & Annuity
	  	$	224,000.00
	 Paul D. Andrews
 Senior Vice President – Corporate Services
	  	$	214,000.00

 Last revision date: May 22, 2007
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 21, 2005 IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED 
  Canada
    
    0-12014
    
    98-0017682(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 111 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario,
    
    M5W 1K3(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code: 1-800-567-3776    Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy
the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below): o   Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) o   Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) o   Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) o   Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 5.02
    
    Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of
Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers.Pierre Des Marais II retired as a director of Imperial Oil
Limited effective the close of the annual shareholders
meeting on April 21, 2005. At the same annual shareholders
meeting, Jack Mintz was elected as a new director.
       SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDate: April 21, 2005By:
    /s/ Brian LivingstonName:
    Brian LivingstonTitle:
    Vice-President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary By:
    /s/ Marilyn HendersonName:
    Marilyn HendersonTitle:
    Assistant Secretary
664 A.2d 941

#### IN THE MATTER OF RALPH A. GONZALEZ, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 6, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court on August 24, 1995, concluding that RALPH A. GONZALEZ of DEPTFORD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987, should be disciplined on the basis of his guilty plea to the disorderly persons offense of obstructing the administration of law, in violation of *N.J.S.A.*2C:29-1, conduct in violation of *RPC*8.4;

And the Court having determined from its own review of the record that the appropriate discipline for the conduct is a reprimand;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RALPH A. GONZALEZ is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### Charles DeMartino, Appellant, v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 12, 2009;

decided February 24, 2009

*753Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion to seal denied as unnecessary *(see*Rules of Ct of Appeals [22 NYCRR] § 500.5 [b]).

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 40085 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Joseph Fain,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:18

- CR

- 10

- 6

Before **Jones, Clement,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  : *
The attorney appointed to represent Joseph Fain has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Fain has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opin ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40085 Document: 00515521613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2020No. 19

- 40085

2 portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. See United States v. Pesina

- Rodriguez , 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir

. 2016). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42. Case: 19-40085 Document: 00515521613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2020
AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 



        This
Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of
May 31, 2007, by and between IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation
(“Image”), and JEFF FRAMER, an individual (“Executive”), with
respect to that certain Employment Agreement as amended, dated April 1, 2004 by and
between Image and Executive (the “Agreement”). 



        The
following shall amend the Agreement currently in effect as set forth herein. Except as
modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning set forth
in the Agreement. 



        1.    Amendment
of Paragraph 7. The first clause of the second sentence of           Paragraph 7
shall be amended to replace May 31, 2007 with June 15, 2007 such           that the
amended sentence shall read as follows:  




        “The
second one year option must be exercised by Image by June 15, 2007, in the same manner
described above, to extend the term from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009.” 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be duly
executed as of the day and year first written above. 



		ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
	

 	IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
	

 	By:  /s/ Dennis Hohn Cho
		Name:  Dennis Hohn Cho
		Title:  Senior Vice President, General Counsel
		           and Secretary
	

 	/s/ Jeff Framer
		Jeff Framer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Linda M. Griffin, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 402]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Shirley Troutman, J.), rendered April 4, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of identity theft in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed *(see People v Baxter,*302 AD2d 950 [2003], *lv denied*99 NY2d 652 [2003]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20693

 

EDUARDO DeLaGARZA; ET AL,

Plaintiffs

EDUARDO DeLaGARZA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL,

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(4:02-CV-4974)

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




Second Amendment

To

Severance Agreement




     WHEREAS, Goodrich Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) and Walter G. Goodrich (the
“Executive”) have entered into (i) that certain Severance Agreement dated effective as of April 25,
2003 (the “Agreement”); and (ii) that certain First Amendment to Severance Agreement effective as
of April 11, 2007; and



WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein;




     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, which the parties hereby acknowledge, the
Agreement is amended by adding thereto the following:



     “Change in Duties” shall mean the occurrence, on or within 18 months after the date upon which
a Change of Control occurs, of any one or more of the following:



     (1) a reduction in the duties or responsibilities of a Covered Executive from those applicable
to him immediately prior to the date on which the Change of Control occurs;



     (2) a reduction in a Covered Executive’s current Annual Rate of Total Compensation; or



     (3) a change in the location of a Covered Executive’s principal place of employment by more
than 50 miles from the location where he was principally employed immediately prior to the date on
which the Change of Control occurs, unless such relocation is agreed to in writing by the Covered
Executive; provided, however, that a relocation scheduled prior to the date of the Change of
Control shall not constitute a Change in Duties.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment, effective for all
purposes as of May 17, 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	GOODRICH PETROLEUM CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Pat E. Malloy, III
 	 
	 	 	Title:  Chairman of the Board 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ Walter G. Goodrich
#### In the Matter of Pablo DeJesus, Appellant, v Andrea W. Evans, Chairwoman, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 825]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered May 23, 2012 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Inasmuch as petitioner has been released to parole supervision, his appeal from the judgment denying his CPLR article 78 petition seeking release to parole has been rendered moot *(see People ex rel. Baron v New York State Dept. of Corrections,*94 AD3d 1410, 1410 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 807 [2012]; *People ex rel. Graham v Fischer,*70 AD3d 1381, 1381-1382 [2010]; *People ex rel. Mitchell v Unger,*63 AD3d 1591, 1591 [2009]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein *(see Baron,*94 AD3d at 1410; *Graham,*70 AD3d at 1381-1382; *see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
Exhibit 34.1.3.1

[Letterhead of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP]

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors of The First American Corporation:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. (the “Company” and an indirect subsidiary of the First American Corporation), complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2007 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and 1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management’s assertion identifies theindividual securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and the servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for all loans for residential and commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the residential and commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 12, 2008
#### Michael J. Pronti, Doing Business as Best Construction Company and Best Home Repair Service, Appellant, v Robert G. Smutzinger et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 577]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (O’Shea, J.), entered May 10, 2006 in Chemung County, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

Defendant Robert G. Smutzinger, who was 80 years old, and his wife, entered into a contract with plaintiff to have their roof repaired at a cost of $1,860. Plaintiff contends that he retained an independent contractor who completed the project in a professional fashion and defendants have not paid him any of the agreed upon amount. Defendants assert, among other *945things, that the work was not done correctly, plaintiff and his workers walked off the job when told of Smutzinger’s dissatisfaction, and defendants expended $1,958 to have another contractor repair the faulty work and complete the job. Plaintiff commenced this action for, among other things, breach of contract. In a prior motion, Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs contract failed to comply with various provisions of General Business Law § 771 and, thus, that any recovery would be under quantum meruit. Plaintiff subsequently made a motion for summary judgment, which Supreme Court denied. Plaintiff appeals.

We agree with Supreme Court that, under the remaining theory of quantum meruit, there are several factual issues, including the quality and value of plaintiffs work. The contractual language upon which plaintiff purports to rely is no longer relevant in light of Supreme Court’s prior order *(cf. Hausen v Academy Print. & Specialty Co.,*34 AD2d 792, 792 [1970]) and, in any event, such language is not dispositive under the facts of this case. Plaintiffs motion was properly denied *(see generally Moran v Technical Bldg. Servs.,*258 AD2d 697, 698 [1999]). The remaining arguments have been considered and found meritless.

Crew III, J.E, Peters, . Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.