alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.1 


 


February 28, 2013


 


Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549


  


	 	Re:	First Defiance Financial Corp. – Annual Report on Form 10-K
	 	 	for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2012


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Today, First Defiance Financial Corp., an
Ohio corporation (“First Defiance”), is filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2012 (the “Form 10-K”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).


 


Pursuant to the instructions relating to
the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, First Defiance hereby agrees to furnish the SEC, upon request, copies of
instruments and agreements, defining the rights of holders of First Defiance’s long-term debt and of the long-term debt of
its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to the Form 10-K. The total amount of securities issued under
any instrument of such long-term debt does not exceed 10% of the total assets of First Defiance and its subsidiaries on a consolidated
basis.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	FIRST DEFIANCE FINANCIAL CORP.
	 	 
	 	/s/ Donald P. Hileman
	 	 
	 	Donald P. Hileman
	 	Chief Financial Officer
2012 10K EX 10.4(ii)


EXHIBIT 10.4(ii)


AMENDMENT TO THE DUKE REALTY CORPORATION
2000 PERFORMANCE SHARE PLAN
2004 AWARD AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of July 30, 2008, by and between Duke Realty Corporation, an Indiana corporation (the “Company”), and the undersigned (the “Participant”), amends that certain Performance Share Plan Award Agreement, dated as of January 28, 2004, by and between the Company and the Participant (the “PSP Award Agreement”).


In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:


1.  The PSP Award Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 7 thereof in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:


7.    Payment of Vested Performance Shares.  Subject to Section 3.14 of the Plan, as amended on January 30, 2008, payment of vested Performance Shares shall be made in Shares within sixty (60) days after the first to occur of the Participant’s death, Permanent and Total Disability or Separation from Service or a Change in Control of the Company.  Payment of the vested Performance Shares shall be made in a single lump sum, unless the Participant shall have previously made an election at or about the time of the original grant to receive payment in annual installments in the event of the Participant’s retirement after age 55.  If installment payment was elected, the installments shall commence no later than sixty (60) days following the date of retirement (or such later date as may be required by Section 3.14 of the Plan) and, for purposes of Code Section 409A, such annual installments shall be treated as a single payment.  During the installment period, cash dividends will continue to be paid on all unpaid Performance Shares.


2.  All other provisions of the PSP Award Agreement shall remain the same.
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


PARTICIPANT
	
		
	 
	 

	«Name_First_», Participant
	Date








COMPANY
Duke Realty Corporation 
	
			
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	Tracy D. Swearingen
	Date

	 
	Vice President, Taxation
	 













- 1 -
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4953

To suspend temporarily the duty on allyl ureido monomer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004

Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on allyl ureido monomer.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ALLYL UREIDO MONOMER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.34.41 Allyl ureido monomer (CAS 

No. 90412–00–3) (provided 

for in subheading 

2933.29.90) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 
2

•HR 4953 IH 

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
909 A.2d 285

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILFRID LEBLANC, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 2, 2006.

ORDER

Thé Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-075, concluding that WILFRID LeBLANC, JR., of ROSELLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(a) and (b) (failure to communicate with client and failure to explain the matter to the extent necessary for the client to make informed decisions about the representation), *RPC*1.5(a) (unreasonable fee), *RPC*1.15(b) (failure to promptly remit funds to a third party), *RPC*3.2 (failure to expedite litigation), *RPC*3.4(c) (failure to abide by a court order), *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), *RPC*8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and *Rule*5:3-5(b) (failure to comply with the rule prohibiting non-refundable retainers in family law matters);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should be required to complete courses in professional responsibility and that respondent should practice law under supervision;

*481And WILFRID LeBLANC, JR., having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And the Court having determined from its review of the matter that a censure is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that WILFRID LeBLANC, JR., is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that within sixty days after the filing date of this Order, respondent shall enroll in six hours of courses in professional responsibility approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics and thereafter shall provide proof of his successful completion thereof to the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall practice under supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court; 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Richard J. Gaynor, Chief Financial 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 to his knowledge:



Date:
March 6, 2008

| | /s/RICHARD J. GAYNORRichard J. Gaynor Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### Evans *v.*The State.

Bleckley, O. J. — 1. One of the State’s witnesses having testified that he was induced by the father of the accused to testify falsely before the coroner’s jury, and the father having contradicted him as to the facts and circumstances by which the alleged influence was exerted, a conversation between the two witnesses after the false swearing was done is not admissible merely to corroborate the State’s witness, but is admissible to impeach the father, if, on being interrogated as to the same while under examination, his attention being called to time, place and person, he denies a material part of the conversation, so as to bring the matter within £3872 of the code touching the impeachment of witnesses by proof of contradictory statements. That the father, after having had the State’s witness subpoenaed to testify in behalf of the accused, said he would discharge him or withdraw the subpoena, is not admissible in evidence as an independent fact, but might be relevant as part of a conversation involved in the foregoing propositions.

2. It is not correct practice for the court to charge the jury as to the preliminaries which must appear before contradictory statements by a witness can be proved to affect his credit, these preliminaries being matters exclusively for the court. But an error in this respect would not be cause for a new trial.

*4693. If a witness in. testifying at different times and in different trials of the same case contradict himself upon immaterial matters alone, it is of no consequence; but if some of the-matters be material and others immaterial, the jury should not be instructed that they are not authorized to consider those which are immaterial, though it would be correct to instruct them that for these alone the witness could not be discredited.

4. On the trial of a criminal case, it is error for the court to instruct the jury to give the evidence for the State just such weight and credit as they give the testimony for the defense, and to give it all such weight and credit as they think it entitled to. The latter proposition would be correct if it stood alone; but the whole is vitiated by the direction to give as much weight and credit to the State’s evidence as to that in behalf of the accused. The jury, and not the judge, must determine the relative weight and credibility of the evidence.

5. Other than as indicated in the preceding notes, no error prejudicial to the accused appears in any of the grounds of the motion for a new trial, though there were some slight errors made in his favor.

October 15,1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Smith. Dodge superior court. March, term, 1894.

J. W. Walters, D. M. Boberts and E. A. Smith, for plaintiff in error. Tom Eason, solicitor-general, by Harrison & Peeples, *contra.*

*Judgment reversed.*
#### In the Matter of 38 Park Avenue Association, LLC, et al., Appellants, v David B. Tweedy et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 454]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the New York City Water Board dated September 16, 2003 and November 7, 2003, respectively, which denied the petitioners’ separate appeals seeking reductions in charges on water and wastewater bills dated June 28, 1996, December 11, 1996, and August 5, 1998, respectively, the petitioners appeal from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated June 7, 2004, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated July 21, 2004, which, upon the decision, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings and a new determination in accordance herewith.

We find it appropriate to remit this matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings and a new determination to consider whether the rate schedule as amended by a resolution of the New York City Water Board dated March 4, 2005, was reasonable and complied with due process requirements, or was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and failed to comply therewith *(see*CPLR 7803 [3]; *see Brothers*
      *808
      *v Florence,*95 NY2d 290, 301 [2000]; *Matter of Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc. v Tweedy,*33 AD3d 794 [2006] [decided herewith]). Florio, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of MCA Holdings Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, I, Wai Leung Cheng, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  February 14, 2007 MCA Holdings Corporation By: /s/ Wai Leung Cheng Wai Leung Cheng  Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of MCA Holdings Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, I, Chee Ping Ng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  February 14, 2007 MCA Holdings Corporation By:/s/ Chee Ping Ng Chee Ping Ng
KFS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0666

THOMAS KOOP, III,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including April 4, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 6 2020

03/06/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0666
Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 609   Filed 11/06/19   Page 1 of 8 PageID: 47341

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 609   Filed 11/06/19   Page 2 of 8 PageID: 47342

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 609   Filed 11/06/19   Page 3 of 8 PageID: 47343

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 609   Filed 11/06/19   Page 4 of 8 PageID: 47344

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 609   Filed 11/06/19   Page 5 of 8 PageID: 47345

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 609   Filed 11/06/19   Page 6 of 8 PageID: 47346

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 609   Filed 11/06/19   Page 7 of 8 PageID: 47347

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME   Document 609   Filed 11/06/19   Page 8 of 8 PageID: 47348
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5157

To amend the Public Health Service Act to expand the risk pools that 

qualify for high risk pool grants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2004

Mr. NETHERCUTT (for himself and Ms. DUNN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to expand the 

risk pools that qualify for high risk pool grants.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘High Risk Pool Flexi5 bility Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REVISION OF DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED HIGH 

7 RISK POOL. 

8 Section 2745(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 300gg–45(d)) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 
2

•HR 5157 IH 

1 ‘‘(1) QUALIFIED HIGH RISK POOL.—The term 

2 ‘qualified high risk pool’ has the meaning given such 

3 term in section 2744(c)(2), except that a State may 

4 elect to meet the requirement of subparagraph (A) 

5 of such section (insofar as it requires the provision 

6 of coverage to all eligible individuals) through pro7 viding for the enrollment of eligible individuals 

8 through an acceptable alternative mechanism (as de9 fined for purposes of section 2744) that includes a 

10 high risk pool as a component. 

11 ‘‘(2) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means any of 

12 the 50 States and the District of Columbia.’’.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0607 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT LARRY WOOD ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 21 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2021

03/15/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0607
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Robert Earl Byrd v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-20-00108-CR

Trial court case number: 1578701

Trial court: 178th District Court of Harris County

Appellant and the State have filed a joint motion to abate the appeal to allow 

the trial court to issue findings and fact and conclusions of law on appellant’s motion 

to suppress evidence.

We grant the motion and abate the appeal and remand for the trial court to 

enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law, separate and apart from any 

docket sheet notations in this case, in conjunction with the trial court’s denial of 

appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. See State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that trial court must provide findings of fact and 

conclusions of law adequate to provide appellate court with basis to review trial 

court’s application of law to facts, either in writing or on record at hearing); Wicker 

v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4. 

The trial court shall make the appropriate findings and conclusions and shall 

cause them to be filed with the trial court clerk within 30 days of the date of this 

order. We further order the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court 

within 30 days of the date of this order.

This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket without 

further order of the Court when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this Court. 

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Sherry Radack_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___April 7, 2020____
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Snowdon Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
M. Baker, Chief Executive Officer 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:




(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Dated this 21st day of September, 2009.




“R.M. Baker”__________________________________


Robert M. Baker


Chief Executive Officer 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 Tube City IMS Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel E. Rosati, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                     
|/s/ DANIEL E. ROSATI                                                                                                 
|Daniel E. Rosati Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer Tube City IMS Corporation July 31, 2007

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