alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ETN 12.31.2012 EX 10(i)


Exhibit 10(i)




FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
LIMITED EATON SERVICE 
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIRMENT INCOME PLAN II
(January 1, 2008 Restatement)
WHEREAS, the Company maintains in effect the Limited Eaton Service Supplemental Retirement Income Plan II under a January 1, 2008 Restatement, as amended (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Company reserves the right to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan in order to reflect the corporate restructuring of Eaton Corporation pursuant to which common shares of Eaton Corporation will be converted into ordinary shares of Eaton Corporation plc.
NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective as of the Merger Effective Time described in the Transaction Agreement dated May 21, 2012, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to the Transaction Agreement, dated June 22, 2012, and Amendment No. 2 to the Transaction Agreement, dated October 19, 2012, between Cooper Industries plc, Eaton Corporation, Abeiron Limited, Comdell Limited, Turlock B.V., and Turlock Corporation, as follows: 
1. The definition of “Board” in Article III of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“Board.”  The Board of Directors of Eaton Corporation plc.
2. The definition of “Change in Control” in Article III of the plan is hereby amended by replacing “Company” with “Eaton Corporation plc” in each place “Company” appears.
3. The first sentence of Section 8.05 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
The Company fully expects to continue the Plan but it reserves the right, at any time or from time to time, by action of the Board, to modify or amend the Plan, in whole or in part, or to terminate the Plan, in whole or in part, at any time and for any reason, including, but not limited to, adverse changes in federal tax laws.
4. Section 8.06 of the Plan is hereby amended by replacing “Company” with “Eaton Corporation 
plc” in the one place “Company” appears.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed through duly authorized persons on this ____ day of November, 2012.


EATON CORPORATION 


By:  __________________________________ 


Title: _________________________________
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Grace 6,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending August 31, 2007, I, Virginia K.
      Sourlis, Chief Executive Officer and 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 August 31, 2007, 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 August 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      October 5, 2007


By:
              /s/ VIRGINIA
              K. SOURLISVirginia
                K. Sourlis
              Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:11-cr-00336-MAS Document 9 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 31
Case 3:11-cr-00336-MAS Document 9 Filed 05/31/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 32
Case 3:11-cr-00336-MAS Document 9 Filed 05/31/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 33
Case 3:11-cr-00336-MAS Document 9 Filed 05/31/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 34
Case 3:11-cr-00336-MAS Document 9 Filed 05/31/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 35
Case 3:11-cr-00336-MAS Document 9 Filed 05/31/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 36
Case 3:11-cr-00336-MAS Document 9 Filed 05/31/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 37
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 28, 2013

s0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2013

146306

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146306

COA: 310546

Macomb CC: 2007-005808-FC

JOHN BOMAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 2, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

LIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

Civil No. 10-4059-RBK-KMW

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

AND ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION

This matter having come before the Court by way of

letter request dated March 8, 2011 from James C. Veith, Esquire,

counsel for the defendants, requesting the Court to schedule a

settlement conference; and it appearing all counsel join in the

request, the Court GRANTS the request:

1. The Court will hold a settlement conference on April

11, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Confidential Memorandum are due to the

Court no later than April 8, 2011. Each party should submit a

confidential memorandum to the Court, not to exceed 3 pages,

summarizing the relevant facts, the respective legal positions,

status of the case and the client’s position on settlement. Trial

Counsel and clients with full settlement authority must attend

the conference. If the parties agree, clients with full

settlement authority may appear by telephone if requested and

approved by the Court in advance. Any party granted permission

to appear for the settlement conference by telephone must be

available by phone throughout the conference. If Trial Counsel

and client with full settlement authority do not appear, or are

unavailable by phone when needed, the settlement conference may

be cancelled or re-scheduled and the non-compliant party and/or

attorney may be sanctioned, which may include an assessment of

the costs and expenses incurred by those parties who appeared as

directed.

2. Any application for an extension of time beyond the

deadlines set herein shall be made in writing to the undersigned

and served upon all counsel prior to expiration of the period

sought to be extended, and shall disclose in the application all

such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons

Case 1:10-cv-04059-RBK-KMW Document 23 Filed 03/10/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 142
necessitating the application showing good cause under FED. R.

CIV. P. 16(b), and whether adversary counsel agree with the

application. The schedule set herein will not be extended unless

good cause is shown.

THE FAILURE OF A PARTY OR ATTORNEY TO OBEY THIS ORDER

MAY RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P.

16(f).

s/ Karen M. Williams 

KAREN M. WILLIAMS

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Hon. Robert B. Kugler

Case 1:10-cv-04059-RBK-KMW Document 23 Filed 03/10/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 143
Exhibit 32(ii)



Certification of the Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-KSB filed by
American Community Bancshares, Inc. (the Issuer) for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in
that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                     |  |                                     |  |                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | American Community Bancshares, Inc.
|                     |  |                                    
|Date: March 19, 2004 |  | By:                                 |  | /s/ Dan R. Ellis, Jr.                           
|                     |  |                                     |  | Dan R. Ellis, Jr.                               
|                     |  |                                     |  | Chief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer
Case 2:11-cr-00165-KSH Document 108 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 413
Case 2:11-cr-00165-KSH Document 108 Filed 07/23/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 414
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5113 

To prevent abuse of the special allowance subsidies under the Federal Family 

Education Loan Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 

Mr. KILDEE (for himself, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of 

California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prevent abuse of the special allowance subsidies under 

the Federal Family Education Loan Program. 

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 ‘‘Emergency Loan 

5 Abuse Prevention Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE ALLOWANCES. 

7 Section 438(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 

8 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087–1(b)(2)(B)) is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following new clause: 

10 ‘‘(v) This subparagraph shall not apply to— 
2 

•HR 5113 IH 

1 ‘‘(I) any loan made or purchased after the 

2 date of enactment of the Emergency Loan 

3 Abuse Prevention Act of 2004; or 

4 ‘‘(II) any loan made or purchased before 

5 such date of enactment with funds described in 

6 the first or second sentence of clause (i) if— 

7 ‘‘(aa) the obligation described in the 

8 first such sentence has, after such date of 

9 enactment, matured, or been retired or 

10 defeased; or 

11 ‘‘(bb) the maturity date, the date of 

12 defeasement, or the date of retirement of 

13 the obligation described in the first such 

14 sentence has, after such date of enactment, 

15 been extended.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. EXPENDITURE OF SAVINGS ON INCREASED PELL 

17 GRANTS. 

18 From any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise ap19 propriated, there is appropriated for each of the fiscal 

20 years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act 

21 an additional amount for the purposes of increasing the 

22 maximum Pell grant in each Act providing annual appro23 priations for the Pell grant program under subpart 1 of 

24 part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

25 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) that is equal to the amount that is 
3 

•HR 5113 IH 

1 determined annually by the Congressional Budget Office 

2 to be the amount by which expenditures under section 438 

3 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1087–1) are reduced for such fiscal 

4 year by the enactment of section 2 of this Act. 

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 :

MURAKUSH CALIPHATE OF :

AMEXEM INC., :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

v. :

 :

JEROME B. SIMANDLE, :

 :

Defendant. :

 :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1316 (MLC)

O P I N I O N

PLAINTIFF, Murakush Caliphate of Amexem Inc., submitted for

filing a pro se civil complaint, together with an application to

proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and a motion for

appointment of pro bono counsel. See dkt. entries nos. 1, 2, 3.

PLAINTIFF also initiated another matter in the District of

New Jersey. See Murakush Caliphate of Amexem Inc., d/b/a

Murakush Imperial Temple of Amexem v. State of New Jersey, Civ.

Action No. 11-1317 (RBK) (D.N.J.) (“Murakush-Amexem”).

ON May 13, 2011, the complaint in Murakush-Amexem was

dismissed. See Murakush Caliphate of Amexem Inc. v. New Jersey,

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51887 (D.N.J. May 13, 2011). The opinion

accompanying the dismissal order explained to Plaintiff why a

corporation cannot proceed in a civil action pro se or qualify

for in forma pauperis status, or obtain pro bono counsel, or

raise jus tertii claims. See id. In addition, that opinion

Case 3:11-cv-01316-MLC-DEA Document 4 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 24
detailed that the very same explanations had been provided to

Plaintiff at least nine times by the judges in this District, the

Southern District of Florida, the Eastern District of Virginia,

and the District of Delaware, which made the explanations

provided in Murakush-Amexem at least the tenth round of the same. 

See id. Thus, Plaintiff is familiar with the legal standards.

THE COURT will dismiss the Complaint here. The Court will

issue an appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: June 6, 2011

2

Case 3:11-cv-01316-MLC-DEA Document 4 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NOVEL LABORATORIES, INC., 

 

 Defendant/Counterclaim 

 Plaintiff. 

 

 

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-01341 (PGS) 

(LHG) 

AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Amended notice is hereby given that Novel Laboratories, Inc. (“Novel”) in the 

above-named case hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit from the Final Judgment entered in this action on June 19, 2013, Dkt. No. 389, 

and all issues, rulings, and orders ancillary or subsidiary thereto, including but not 

limited to the following: 

 1. the Memorandum and Order entered on September 19, 2012, Dkt. No. 130 

(claim construction); 

 2. the Summary Judgment Opinion and Order, entered on January 18, 2013, 

Dkt. Nos. 261 and 262, respectively (including the denial of Novel’s motion to strike and 

motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2)); 

3. the Order entered on February 5, 2013, Dkt. No. 332, (denying Novel’s 

motion for reconsideration); 

Case 3:11-cv-01341-PGS-LHG Document 390 Filed 06/19/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 27605
	 ‐	2	‐	 	

4. the Opinion and Order entered on June 4, 2013, Dkt. Nos. 380 and 381, 

respectively (judgment after bench trial finding the asserted claims not invalid); and 

5. the Court’s rulings concerning standing and inventorship, and evidence of 

SUCLEAR, which were made from the bench during the course of trial, but were not 

addressed in the June 4, 2013 Opinion and Order; 

June 19, 2013 

New York, New York 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/_Hillel I. Parness 

Hillel I. Parness 

Ronald M. Daignault (pro hac vice) 

David Leichtman (pro hac vice) 

Matthew B. McFarlane (pro hac vice) 

Oren D. Langer (pro hac vice) 

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 

601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 

New York, New York 10022 

(212) 980-7400 

(212) 980-7499 

hiparness@rkmc.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Novel Laboratories, Inc. 

Case 3:11-cv-01341-PGS-LHG Document 390 Filed 06/19/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 27606
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Hillel I. Parness, hereby certify that on the 19th day of June, 2013, I caused a 

true and correct copy of this AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to be served by ECF on 

all counsel of record. 

Date: June 19, 2013 /s/ Hillel I. Parness 

 

 Hillel I. Parness 

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI 

L.L.P. 

601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 

New York, New York 10022 

Tel: (212) 980-7400 

Fax: (212) 980-7499 

hiparness@rkmc.com 

Attorney for Novel Laboratories, Inc.

 

Case 3:11-cv-01341-PGS-LHG Document 390 Filed 06/19/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 27607
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5149

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

block grant program through March 31, 2005, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5149 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Welfare Reform Exten3 sion Act, Part VIII’’.

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR

5 NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

6 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Activities authorized by part A of

8 title IV of the Social Security Act, and by sections 510,

9 1108(b), and 1925 of such Act, shall continue through

10 March 31, 2005, in the manner authorized for fiscal year

11 2004, notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) of such Act,

12 and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States

13 not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated

14 such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants

15 and payments may be made pursuant to this authority

16 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the level

17 provided for such activities through the second quarter of

18 fiscal year 2004.

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

20 (1) SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR POPULATION

21 INCREASES IN CERTAIN STATES.—Section

22 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42

23 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking

24 ‘‘September 30, 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘March 31,

25 2005’’.
3

•HR 5149 EH

1 (2) CONTINGENCY FUND.—Section

2 403(b)(3)(C)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

3 603(b)(3)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘2004’’ and

4 inserting ‘‘2005’’.

5 (3) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—Section

6 409(a)(7) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is

7 amended—

8 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or

9 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2005, or 2006’’; and

10 (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking

11 ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2005’’.

12 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE

13 STUDY OF CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WEL14 FARE WAIVER AUTHORITY THROUGH MARCH

15 31, 2005.

16 Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a)

17 of the Social Security Act shall continue through March

18 31, 2005, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004,

19 and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States

20 not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated

21 such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants

22 and payments may be made pursuant to this authority

23 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the level
4

•HR 5149 EH

1 provided for such activities through the second quarter of

2 fiscal year 2004.

Passed the House of Representatives September 30,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5149

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy

2005, and for other purposes.Families block grant program through March 31,
#### The County of Walton *v.*Franklin *et al.*

Simmons, C. J. — The county authorities have no power to hire out convicts sentenced under the provisions of section 4310 of the code, to a private individual, whether being so hired they be worked in chain-gangs or otherwise, and so much of the acts of the legislature embodied in sections 4814,4815, 4820 and 4821(e) of the code as authorizes such a hiring is repealed by the act of August 11, 1879 (Code, §4310). Hence, where an ordinary hired convicts to an individual to be worked in a chain-gang, and took a bond from him for the faithful performance of his contract, and the individual refused to take the convicts, in a suit for a breach of the bond, these facts being alleged in the petition, it was not error to sustain a general demurrer thereto. Notwithstanding a seeming expression to the contrary in the head-note announced in the case of *Walton County*v. *Powell,*94 *Qa.*646, that case is distinguishable from the present. There the written contract had been executed, and the hirers themselves recognized its legality, but sought to avoid its terms by proving a parol contract conflicting with the same.

December 21,1894.

Action on bond. Before Judge Clark. Newton superior court. ’March term, 1894.

On September 27, 1890, the County of Walton by its ordinary entered into a contract with Franklin, whereby it agreed to deliver to him at its jail all convicts sentenced by the superior and county courts to work in the chain-gang upon the public works, during the years 1891 and 1892; he representing in this contract that he maintained in Newton county a public chain-gang inspected by the grand jury of that county, with suitable provision for the safe-keeping and management of ■such convicts as might be placed under his charge by the county authorities for the purpose of carrying out the sentences of the courts; and agreeing to pay certain *539named prices for different classes of convicts, to take all convicts and maintain them without expense to the county, to send proper guard for them when notified, pay the stipulated price on their delivery, and keep, guard, clothe and work all such convicts as provided in the respective sentences of the courts. For the faithful performance of this contract he executed a bond with security, payable to the ordinary of Walton county, and his successors. The county performed its part of the contract, giving due notice and delivering all convicts called for in response thereto; but about August 29, 1892, Franklin refused, and continued to refuse for the balance of the time covered by the agreement, to receive or send for any more such convicts as he agreed under the contract to take; whereby the county was forced to keep them in jail until they could be rehired, and then to rehire them at lesser rates than he had agreed to pay. Suit was brought on the bond, for the difference in hire, expenses, etc., of the convicts so rejected; and the petition, showing the foregoing facts with other details not necessary to mention, was dismissed on demurrer.

*538
      *Judgment affirmed.*

*539Sanders McDaniel, for plaintiff.

E. F. Edwards, for defendants.
#### In the Matter of Andrzej Tercjak, Respondent, v Jadwiga Tercjak, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 453]

An agreement between parents concerning custody will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the agreement and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the child *(see Pambianchi v Goldberg,*35 AD3d 688, 689 [2006]). As a custody determination depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the findings of the Family Court will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 174 [1982]; *Matter of Honeywell v Honeywell,*39 AD3d 857, 858 [2007]; *Kuncman v Kuncman,*188 AD2d 517, 518 [1992]). Here, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court’s award of sole physical and legal custody to the father (see *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; *Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra,*294 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]).

Although the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence the report of the neutral forensic psychologist, since the report was not submitted under oath *773
      *(see*22 NYCRR 202.16 [g] [2]) and relied on information other than that upon which an expert may properly base an opinion *(see Matter of D'Esposito v Kepler,*14 AD3d 509 [2005]), the error in admitting the report was harmless. There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court’s determination without consideration of the improperly admitted report *(see Matter of D'Esposito v Kepler,*14 AD3d 509 [2005]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni, JJ., concur.
E xhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2008 (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 operation of the Company.
 By:
    
    /s/ Michael NoleName:
    
    Michael NoleTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    November 14, 2008