alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-8_1.htm










Exhibit 10.8.1




AMENDMENT


TO


THE FARMINGTON BANK DEFINED BENEFIT


EMPLOYEES’ PENSION PLAN


As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2011












WHEREAS, Farmington Bank (the “Employer”) heretofore established a defined benefit pension plan known as The Farmington Bank Defined Benefit Employees’ Pension Plan (the “Plan”); and







WHEREAS, under the terms of the Plan, the Employer has the authority to amend the Plan; and







WHEREAS, the Employer desires to amend the Plan to freeze all future benefit accruals under the Plan effective February 28, 2013; and







NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of February 28, 2013, or, if later, the date which is 45 days following the date that notice required by Section 204(h) of ERISA is provided to affected participants, the Plan is hereby amended to provide as follows:







1.             Section 1.1 of the Plan, the definition of “Accrued Benefit”, is amended by adding the following sentence to the end thereof:







Effective February 28, 2013, benefit accruals under the Plan are frozen, and no additional benefits shall accrue after such date.







2.             Section 5.2, entitled “Minimum Benefit Requirement for Top Heavy Plan”, is amended adding the following sentence to the end of paragraph (e) thereof:







Furthermore, notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, pursuant to the freezing of benefit accruals under the Plan on February 28, 2013, no additional benefits shall accrue to any Key Employees or former Key Employees after such date.







3.             A new section 12.17, entitled “Interpretation of Agreement when Plan is Frozen” is added at the end of Article 12 to read as follows:








	
(a)  

	
The Employer established this Plan effective July 1, 1952.  The Employer is freezing the benefits under the Plan as of February 28, 2013, and is directing that the Trust be continued and that distribution of benefits to Participants be made at such time and in such manner as though the Plan had not frozen benefit accruals.







 




  





1











  






 


Exhibit 10.8.1

 



	
(b)  

	
All provisions of the Plan shall be construed and interpreted in a manner consistent with the freezing of benefit accruals under the Plan as of February 28, 2013.

















                 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been adopted this 20th day of December, 2012.







 



	WITNESS	FARMINGTON BANK
	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Gregory A. White          	By: /s/ Lee D. Nordstrom         
	 	 
	 	
Title: SVP Human Resources       


	 	 
	 	 





 







                                                                        









 


 


 


 


 


 


 


2
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 23.01

                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-55886 and 333-55884) pertaining to the AtheroGenics, Inc.
Equity Ownership Plan and the AtheroGenics, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan of our
report dated February 13, 2001, with respect to the financial statements of
AtheroGenics, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.

                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 23, 2001
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(A)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in each prospectus constituting
part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-41475), and on Form S-8
(Nos. 2-92085, 33-44044, 33-45365, 33-46779, 33-51445, 33-51579, 33-53815,
33-53819, 33-62043, 33-62045, 333-12583, 333-12589, 333-12591, 333-13219,
333-30127, 333-23661, 333-23663, and 333-37497) of CBS Corporation of our report
dated January 27, 1999 appearing on page 21 of this Form 10-K/A.



/s/ KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP



New York, New York


August 4, 1999


 50        CBS CORPORATION
# 17SNR11_00

# image1.png
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Antwanine JOHNSON, a/k/a Fudd, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7422.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Brian Antwanine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon D. Kromberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian Antwanine Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*309We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
                     
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         2,492,705
<SECURITIES>                                   595,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,530,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                   802,494
<INVENTORY>                                    2,582,754
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,814,102
<PP&E>                                         2,554,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,584,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,243,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,653,760
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       138,165
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,043,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,243,666
<SALES>                                        6,913,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,913,013
<CGS>                                          4,764,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,004,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (351,279)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             72,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                423,456
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            413,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   413,906
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.03
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6733

JOE LEE FULGHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WESTBROOK J. PARKER, Honorable Judge; JUDGE,

???; JUDGE, ???,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (2:05-cv-00401-JBF)

Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 28, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joe Lee Fulgham appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Fulgham v. Parker, No.

2:05-cv-00401-JBF (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 24, 2006 & entered Feb. 27,

2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Clifford C. TERHUNE, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EXPORT LINES, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

August 20, 1958.

*71Jacob Rassner, New York City, for plaintiff.

Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, for defendant, Walter A. Darby, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

FREDERICK van PELT BRYAN, District Judge.

This action was dismissed for lack of prosecution without opposition by order of Chief Judge Knox on October 3, 1956 after having appeared and been adjourned on the dismissal calendar.

Now, almost two years later, plaintiff moves to vacate the order of dismissal and to extend his time to take further steps in the prosecution of the action.

The action is for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered aboard defendant’s vessel the S. S. Expediter on April 17, 1952.

Plaintiff seeks to excuse his failure to oppose the dismissal or to take any action to vacate the order of dismissal until almost two years after it was entered. The excuse consists of insinuations that “representations” by defendant misled plaintiff’s counsel into the belief that defendant was not the owner of the vessel on which the accident is alleged to have occurred. This is not borne out by the letter from defendant to plaintiff’s counsel annexed to the moving papers, nor is it otherwise substantiated. Indeed, the defendant denies categorically that it misled plaintiff in any way.

In fact, the defendant made it plain that it was the owner of the S. S. Expediter but asserted that this vessel had no connection with plaintiff’s alleged injury. Certainly plaintiff and his counsel should and must have known on what ship he claimed to have been injured and should have taken whatever action was appropriate to protect his rights.

The papers submitted in support of this motion are wholly insufficient to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect or fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct of the adverse party within the meaning of Rule 60(b) (1, 3),F.R.Civ.P.,28U.S.C.A. But even had there been such a showing plaintiff would have no right to the relief which he now seeks. A motion for relief from the order of dismissal for any of these reasons must be made “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” (Rule 60(b); Note to Rule 21 of the General Rules of this court.) The one year limitation in Rule 60(b) has long since elapsed and the plaintiff’s motion cannot now be granted.

Nor does Rule 6(b), F.R.C.P., aid the plaintiff, for the time to take action under Rule 60(b) may not be extended under Rule 6(b).

This case illustrates the soundness of the time limitation in Rule 60(b). The accident happened more than six and one-half years ago. It would place a difficult, if not impossible, burden on the defendant to require it to prepare a defense against the plaintiff’s claims at this late date.

Plaintiff’s motion is in all respects denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 106 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 106

     Congratulating Lutheran schools, students, parents, teachers, 
 administrators, and congregations across the Nation for their ongoing 
          contributions to education, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2003

Mr. Bereuter (for himself, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Nussle, and Mr. Peterson of 
 Minnesota) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Congratulating Lutheran schools, students, parents, teachers, 
 administrators, and congregations across the Nation for their ongoing 
          contributions to education, and for other purposes.

Whereas the Nation's Lutheran schools deliver high-quality education and 
        challenge students to reach their potential;
Whereas there are 4,841 Lutheran early childhood centers, elementary schools, 
        and secondary schools in the United States served by 40,076 teachers;
Whereas the Nation's total Lutheran school student enrollment is 572,877;
Whereas Lutheran schools produce students strongly dedicated to their faith, 
        values, and morals by providing an environment that encourages honesty, 
        trust, respect, and responsibility; and
Whereas the week beginning on March 2, 2003, has been established as National 
        Lutheran Schools Week for the purpose of recognizing the vital 
        contributions of the Nation's Lutheran early childhood education 
        centers, elementary schools, and secondary schools: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals of National Lutheran Schools Week, 
        which is celebrated by several synods that have educational 
        institutions, for the purpose of recognizing their academic 
        achievement; and
            (2) congratulates Lutheran schools, students, parents, 
        teachers, administrators, and congregations across the Nation 
        for their ongoing contributions to education.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6776

DOUGLAS ROSS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIE JAMES THOMPSON, Warden; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE - MORGANTOWN,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-48-1)

Submitted: December 3, 1996 Decided: January 14, 1997

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United

States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In light of this disposition, Appellant's motions to

expedite and for bail pending appeal are denied as moot.

2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Ross appeals the district court's order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ross

v. Thompson, No. CA-96-48-1 (N.D.W. Va. May 1, 1996).* 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.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3487

___________

Diane Gardner, Kermit Gardner, *

Amy Gardner, Jessie Gardner, and *

Sarah Gardner, By and Through *

Their Next Friend and Natural *

Mother, Diane Gardner, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Walter "Buck" Buerger, Sheriff of * District of Missouri.

Jefferson County, Missouri, As an *

Individual and In His Official * [UNPUBISHED]

Capacity, and C. Partain, Deputy *

Sheriff of Jefferson County, *

Missouri, As an Individual and In *

His Official Capacity, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 25, 1998

Filed: October 16, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

The Gardners brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, after Charles

Partain, a Jefferson County, Missouri, deputy sheriff, shot and killed Charles Gardner

while serving an ex parte order of protection. The Gardners maintained that Deputy

Partain used excessive force when he shot Mr. Gardner, and that Jefferson County

Sheriff Walter Buerger failed to train Deputy Partain adequately. The jury returned a

verdict in favor of the two police officers, and the trial court entered judgment on the 1

verdict.

The Gardners argue on appeal that the trial court erred in excluding certain

evidence regarding the use of force and the reasonableness of Deputy Partain's actions.

Having carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the record in this case, we conclude

that the trial court did not err in excluding the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court. See 8 Cir. R. 47B. th

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                 <c>                                 <c>
                                    O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

CENTURY CITY                        400 South Hope Street               TYSONS CORNER
IRVINE SPECTRUM                     Los Angeles, California             WASHINGTON, D.C.
MENLO PARK                          90071-2899                          HONG KONG
NEWPORT BEACH                       Telephone (213) 430-6000            LONDON
NEW YORK                            Facsimile (213) 430-6407            SHANGHAI
SAN FRANCISCO                       Internet: www.omm.com               TOKYO

</TABLE>

May 10, 2002

Capital World Growth and Income Fund, Inc.
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, California  90071

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

At your request we have examined your Registration Statement on Form N-1A and
the related Post-Effective Amendment No. 13 filed by you with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of an indefinite number of shares of your
common stock, $0.01 par value per share, of the following Classes:  R-1, R-2,
R-3, R-4 and R-5 (collectively, the "Class R Shares").  We are familiar with
the proceedings you have taken in connection with the authorization, issuance
and sale of the Class R Shares.

Based upon our examination and upon our knowledge of your activities, it is our
opinion that, provided that an appropriate amendment to your Articles of
Incorporation is duly effected before the issued and outstanding Class R Shares
exceed the authorized number specified in the Articles of Incorporation, the
Class R Shares upon issuance and sale in the manner described in the
Registration Statement will constitute validly issued, fully paid and
nonassessable shares of your common stock.

We consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
# 2015

# 2016

# 2017

# 2018

# 2019
Exhibit 32.2

Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer
of Tidelands Oil and Gas Corporation,  (the  "Company"),  herby certify that, to
the best of my  knowledge,  the Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for
the period  ended  December  31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial  condition  and results of operation of the Company.  A
signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 has been
provided  to the  registrant  and will be retained  by it and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated: April 15, 2005.                                    /s/ James B. Smith
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         Senior V.P. and CFO