alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### POWER OF ATTORNEY

Saturna Investment Trust, (the "Trust"), and each of the undersigned officers and trustees of the Trust hereby nominates, constitutes and appoints each of Nicholas F. Kaiser and Jane K. Carten, (with full power to each of them to act alone) its/his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, for it/him and on its/his behalf and in its/his name, place and stead in any and all capacities, to make, execute and sign (i) the Trust's Registration Statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and any and all amendments to such Registration Statement and to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and any other regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the offer and sale of shares of the Beneficial Interest of the Trust, any such Registration Statement or amendment, and any and all supplements thereto or to any prospectus or statement of additional information forming a part thereof, and any and all exhibits and other documents requisite in connection therewith, and (ii) the Trust's Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, granting unto said attorneys, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes as the Trust and the undersigned officers and trustees itself/themselves might or could do.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the TRUST has caused this power of attorney to be executed in its name by its President, and attested by its Secretary, and the undersigned officers and trustees have hereunto set their hands and seals at Bellingham, Washington this 22nd day of December 2015.

 

| By: */s/ Nicholas F. Kaiser*Name: Nicholas F. KaiserTitle: Attorney-in-Fact | By: */s/ Jane K. Carten*Name: Jane K. CartenTitle: Attorney-in-Fact |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

Attest:

*/s/ Thomas R. Phillips*Name: Thomas R. PhillipsTitle: Secretary

 

[Trustee and Officer Signatures Continued on Next Page]

----

 

| Signature                                                | Title                                           |
|----------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| */s/ Nicholas F. Kaiser*Nicholas F. kaiser               | Trustee; President(Principal Executive Officer) |
| */s/ Christopher R. Fankhauser*Christopher R. Fankhauser | Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)          |
| */s/ Gary A. Goldfogel*Gary A. Goldfogel                 | Trustee                                         |
| */s/ Herbert G. Grubel*Herbert G. Grubel                 | Trustee                                         |
| */s/ John E. Love*John E. Love                           | Trustee                                         |
| */s/ Ronald H. Fielding*Ronald H. Fielding               | Trustee                                         |

 

 

2
SNV_Exhibit 10.6_12.31.2012






Exhibit 10.6
    
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL CORP. 2011 DIRECTOR STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SYNOVUS FINANCIAL CORP. 2011 DIRECTOR STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of February 28, 2013.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Synovus Financial Corp. 2011 Director Stock Purchase Plan, effective as of June 1, 2011 (the “Plan”).


WHEREAS, Synovus Financial Corp. (“Synovus”) maintains the Plan;


WHEREAS, Synovus desires to amend the Plan to revise the definitions of “Affiliate Director” and “Synovus Director” under the Plan, with the Amendment to be effective on and after April 1, 2013;


NOW, THEREFORE, Synovus hereby amends the Plan as follows:
1.Amendments To Plan.   
1.1    Article 1(A) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


“A.      Affiliate Director:   Any person who is not an employee of Synovus or any Participating Affiliate and serves as a divisional advisory director (as defined in the Synovus Bank bylaws) of any division of Synovus Bank.  Persons who serve in multiple capacities as local divisional advisory directors of one or more Participating Affiliates shall be allowed to participate in the Plan in only one such capacity, and, if such multiple capacities involve service as a Synovus Director and as director of any other Participating Affiliate or Participating Affiliates, such single participation shall be limited to participation at the Synovus Director level.”
1.2    Article 1(P) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as 
follows:


“P.    Synovus Director:   Any person who serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Synovus Financial Corp. or Synovus Bank.”


2.Benefits of this Amendment.  Nothing in this Amendment shall be affect or diminish any Participant's right to the benefit of contributions made by such Participant or his or her Participating Affiliate prior to the date hereof, and no amendment shall affect the authority, duties, rights, liabilities or indemnities of the Agent without the Agent's prior written consent. 
3.Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Georgia.
4.Counterparts; Effectiveness.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument and shall become effective when each party hereto shall have received a counterpart hereof signed by all of the other parties hereto.  
5.Effect of Amendment.  Except as expressly modified by the Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.  
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Synovus has caused this Amendment to be duly executed by its authorized officer as of the day and year first above written.
	
		
	SYNOVUS FINANCIAL CORP.

	By:
	/s/Roy Dallis Copeland, Jr.

	Name:
	Roy Dallis Copeland, Jr.

	Title:
	Executive Vice President and Chief Banking Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Larnell ECKLES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7768.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

William Larnell Eckles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Larnell Eckles, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *261Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Eckles,*No. 5:00-cr-00046-RLV-4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

**Although the district court granted Eckles’s motion, Eckles contends on appeal that he was entitled to an even further reduction.
Exhibit 10.6



 





AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment to Securities Exchange Agreement,
dated as of February 18, 2012 (this “Amendment”), is by and between Compliance Systems Corporation, a Nevada
corporation with its principal place of business at 780 New York Avenue - Suite A, Huntington, New York 11743 (“CSC”),
and RDRD II Holding LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal address at 220 West 42nd Street - 6th
Floor, New York, New York 10036 (“RDRD”).


  


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, RDRD and CSC entered into a Securities
Exchange Agreement as of June 7, 2012 and amended such agreement by Amendment to Securities Exchange Agreement dated as of October
29, 2012 (collectively, the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, RDRD and CSC desire to amend certain
provisions of the Agreement as set forth herein;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises
and of the mutual agreements, representations, warranties and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and adequacy is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Agreement do hereby agree as follows:


 


TERMS


 


1.       Definitions.
Capitalized terms defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in this Amendment. Capitalized terms used but not
defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.


 


2.      
Amendment. The Agreement is hereby amended to delete the following section in its entirety:


 


6.5.CSC Outstanding Debt. As of the Closing
Date, CSC shall have no more than $350,000 in outstanding debt, including, without limitation, notes payable, accounts payable,
accrued expenses, accrued officer’s compensation and loans payable to related parties to loans from shareholders, excluding
the RDRD Advances (as such capitalized term is defined in section 9.1);


 


3.
       This
Amendment embodies the entire agreement between RDRD and CSC with respect to the amendment of the Agreement. In the event of any
conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of the Agreement and this Amendment, the provisions of this Amendment shall control
and govern.


 


4.            
Except as specifically modified and amended herein, all of the terms, provisions, requirements
and specifications contained in the Agreement remain in full force and effect. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the
parties do not intend to, and the execution of this Amendment shall not, in any manner impair the Agreement, the purpose of this
Amendment being simply to amend and ratify the Agreement, as hereby amended and ratified, and to confirm and carry forward the
Agreement, as hereby amended, in full force and effect.


 






    	 



    	 



    
 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
duly executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.


 


	 	Compliance Systems Corporation
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Barry M. Brookstein
	 	 	Barry M. Brookstein, President
	 	 	 
	 	RDRD II Holding LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Robert Kessler
	 	 	Robert Kessler, Manager
#### Ramon GODINEZ-AVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-72513.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Richard Miyamoto, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

*674Brooke Maurer, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Godinez-Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Godinez-Avila’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
MEMC Exhibit 10.36 - Comp Arrangments for Officers - 12.31.12


Exhibit 10.36




Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Named Executive Officers 
Set forth below is a summary of the compensation paid by MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (the “Company”) to the executive officers to be named in the Company's 2013 annual proxy statement who are not covered by current employment agreements, as of the date of filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 10-K”) and are continuing as an executive officer of the Company as of February 15, 2013. None of the below executive officers has an employment agreement with the Company.  Each of these executive officers is an employee at will whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company's Board of Directors  
Base Salaries. These executive officers currently receive base salaries in the amounts indicated below: 
 
	
				
	 
	 

	Name and Position
 
	2012 Base Salary
Amount 
 

	Brian Wuebbels, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
	$
	400,000
	


	Carlos Domenech, Executive Vice President; President-Solar Energy
	$
	425,000
	


	Shaker Sadasivam, Executive Vice President; President-Semiconductor Materials
	$
	424,400
	


	Dave Ranhoff, Senior Vice President, Sales & Marketing
	$
	370,800
	





The Compensation Committee adjusts these base salaries from time to time as the Committee deems appropriate each year, generally annually.  The Committee reviews and discusses the written performance appraisal for each executive officer with the Chief Executive Officer. The above information reflects the base salaries for our named executive officers approved by the Committee in February 2012.  
Incentive Awards. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Company's incentive compensation plans as provided in the terms of such plans, including the Company's short term incentive awards plan (which provides for cash incentive awards) and the Company's long-term incentive awards plan (e.g., the Company's 2001 and 2010 Equity Incentive Plans). Such plans, and any forms of awards thereunder providing for material terms, are included as exhibits to the Form 10-K as appropriate. 
Pension Plan. These executive officers are also eligible to participate in the Company Pension Plan on the same terms as the Company's other covered employees. Because he commenced employment after December 31, 2001, Messrs. Wuebbels, Domenech and Ranhoff are not covered by the MEMC Pension Plan.
Relocation Payments. From time to time the Company makes payments to executive officers to cover relocation expenses.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41457

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUILLERMO CUELLAR-TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-03-CR-549-1

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Guillermo Cuellar-Torres (Cuellar) pleaded guilty to being a

previously-deported alien unlawfully present and found in the

United States without permission, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). The district court sentenced Cuellar to 41 months’

imprisonment, followed by two years’ supervised release.

Cuellar argues that the district court’s factual finding

underlying his denial of a downward departure was clearly

erroneous. This court has no jurisdiction to review the district

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-41457

-2-

court’s decision because “the court’s refusal is based on its

determination that the departure is not warranted on the facts of

the case.” United States v. Buck, 324 F.3d 786, 797 (5th Cir.

2003). This portion of Cuellar’s appeal is DISMISSED.

Cuellar also argues that the offense for which he was

indicted has a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment

because the indictment did not allege that he had a prior

conviction for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),

(b). Cuellar acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but

he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve

his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). This part of the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED. 

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN PART; AFFIRMED

IN PART.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 7, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

135137 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly DIMITRIOS ZAVRADINOS, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices v SC: 135137 COA: 268570 Oakland CC: 2004-062158-CK JTRB, INC., JTR II, L.L.C., RTI, INC., LITTLE DADDY’S OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICHIGAN, L.L.C., RICHARD ROGOW, ATHANASIOS PERISTERIS, and DARREN MCCARTY, Defendants, and

ROBERT PROBERT, Defendant-Appellee, and

LIZA DANIELLE PROBERT, Intervening Party-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take ot her peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall address the following questions: (1) whether DeYoung v

Mesler , 373 Mich 499 (1964), correc tly construed MCL 557.151 to mean that there is a statutory presumption that prop erty held jointly by a husband and wife is held by them as tenants by the entirety unless the title or conveyance expressly provides otherwise, (2) if so, how the presumption of a tenancy by the entirety may be overcome, and (3) whether a provision in the title or conveyance specifi cally identifying the property owners as

husband and wife affects the determination whet her the presumption of a tenancy by the entirety has been overcome. Th e parties shall submit supplemen tal briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing these i ssues. The parties sha ll avoid submitting mere restatements of their application papers.

s0304 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 7, 2008

Clerk
UNITED STATES DIS'I'RIC'l' COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Katharine S. Hayden 

v. Crim. No. 11-405 

BRIHEEM Nf~RO ORDER cOR CONTINUANCE 

This matter having come before the Court on the joint 

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the 

District of New Jersey (Fabiana Pierre-Louis, Assistant U.S. 

Attorney, appearing), and defendant Briheem Nero (Chester Keller, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, appearing), for an order 

granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned 

matter, and the defendant being aware that he has the right to 

have the matter brought to trial within 70 days of the date of 

his appearance before a judicial officer of this court pursuant 

to Title 18, United States Code, Section 316l(c) (1), and as the 

defendant has consented to such a continuance, and for good and 

sufficient cause shown, 

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should 

be continued for the following reasons: 

(1) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and 

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time 

to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render any grand jury 

proceedings and any subsequent trial of this matter unnecessary; 

and 

Case 2:11-cr-00405-KSH Document 16 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 32
(2} l\s l1 result of the foregoin<J, pursuant to Title 18, 

Un:ited States Code~, Section 3161 (h) (7), the t-:nds of justice 

served by granting the continuance outwei the best interest of 

the public and the defendant. in a ::>peedy trial. 

IT IS, therefore,: on this ,:o23.f!day of May, 2012, 

ORDERED that thia action be, and hereby is, continued 

u n t :i 1 ~Jul y 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 ; a n d i tt i s f u r t h vn: 

ORDERED that the period from the date of this order 

through and including .Ju.ly 25, 2012 shall b€: excludable in 

computing time under the 

Form and entry 

consented to: 

Fabiana Pierre-Louis_ 

Assistant u.s. Attorney 

Chester Keller, Esq. 

Trial Act of 1974. 

HAYDEN 

United States District Judge 

Counsel for dr:::fendant Brihee::m Nero 

-2-

Case 2:11-cr-00405-KSH Document 16 Filed 05/24/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 33
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6376

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL DEWITT MCCOTTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CR-90-27-BO, CA-96-190-4-BO)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel DeWitt McCotter, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his motion for modification of his prison term. Appellant

characterized his action as a motion for relief under 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3582(c) (West Supp. 1997). He alleged that his 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 924(c) (West Supp. 1997) conviction was rendered invalid by

Bailey v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S.

Dec. 6, 1995) (Nos. 94-7448, 94-7492). The district court found

that Appellant failed to state a claim under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)

and, also construing the action as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1997) motion, found that he failed to state grounds for

habeas corpus relief.

Regardless of how the action is construed, we find that it

lacks merit. Consequently, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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
Case 2:11-cv-03656-JLL-MAH Document 30 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 595