alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.3A**

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO**

**THE THIRD AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF**

**THE ALABAMA NATIONAL BANCORPORATION**

**PERFORMANCE SHARE PLAN**

**(Effective as of December 30, 2005)**

**Recitals**

**WHEREAS**, theBoard of Directors and the stockholders of Alabama National BanCorporation (the “Corporation”) have previously adopted and approved the Alabama National BanCorporation Performance Share Plan (as amended and restated through the datehereof, the “Performance Share Plan”); 

**WHEREAS**, pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, the Board of Directors of theCorporation has elected to adopt an amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Performance Share Plan in order to ensure that Performance Shares are not required to be classified as a liability of the Corporation pursuant to Financial AccountingStandards Board Statement 123 (revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment* (“FAS 123(R)”); 

**WHEREAS**, the Board of Directorsof the Corporation is permitted to amend the Performance Share Plan under certain circumstances without stockholder approval pursuant to Section 19 therein; and 

**WHEREAS**, the Corporation now desires to amend the Performance Share Plan in accordance with Section 19 therein and in accordance with the foregoing. 

**Amendment to the Performance Share Plan**

1. Capitalized terms used inthis Amendment and not otherwise defined herein have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Performance Share Plan. 

2. Thefifth sentence of Section 21 of the Performance Share Plan shall be amended by deleting the existing language of the sentence in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 

“Each Performance Share so earned shall be canceled in exchange for either, as determined by the Committee, (i) shares of Common Stock in anamount to be calculated in accordance with the procedures set forth in the final paragraph of Section 6 of the Plan, or (ii) an immediate payment in cash of an amount equal to the Change in Control Price.” 

3. Except as hereby amended, the Performance Share Plan remains in full force and effect, as written. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the Company has caused this First Amendment to the Third Amendment andRestatement of the Alabama National BanCorporation Performance Share Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officer. 

 
**ALABAMA NATIONAL BANCORPORATION**By: 
/s/ John H. Holcomb III

Its:
 
Chairman of the Board

 

- 2 -
<PAGE>





                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

          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 The Majestic Star Casino,
LLC and The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp. (collectively, the "Registrant")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Don H. Barden,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Jon S. Bennett,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, 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 Registrant.

Dated: May 13, 2005

/s/ Don H. Barden
-----------------
Don H. Barden
Manager, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.


/s/ Jon S. Bennett
------------------
Jon S. Bennett
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and
The Majestic Star Casino Capital Corp.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

445 

CAF 14-00178 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF DAVIANNA L. 

------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

DAVID R., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANE YOON OF COUNSEL),

PRO BONO APPEALS PROGRAM, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

MERIDETH H. SMITH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (CAROL L. EISENMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

BRYAN S. OATHOUT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROCHESTER. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joseph

G. Nesser, J.), entered January 10, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to

Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, adjudged

that respondent had permanently neglected the subject child and

transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to

petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law §

384-b, respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia,

terminated his parental rights with respect to the subject child on

the ground of permanent neglect and transferred guardianship and

custody of the child to petitioner. We reject the father’s contention

that petitioner failed to establish that it made diligent efforts to

encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. Upon our review

of the record, we conclude that petitioner presented the requisite

clear and convincing evidence that the assigned caseworker made

repeated and diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental

relationship between the child and the father, who was incarcerated,

including through written correspondence and telephonic communication

(see Matter of Jaylysia S.-W., 28 AD3d 1228, 1228-1229; see generally

Matter of Alex C., Jr. [Alex C., Sr.], 114 AD3d 1149, 1149-1150, lv

denied 23 NY3d 901). Contrary to the father’s further contention,

petitioner established that, despite those efforts, the father failed

substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with

or plan appropriately for the child’s future (see Alex C., Jr., 114

AD3d at 1150; Matter of Whytnei B. [Jeffrey B.], 77 AD3d 1340, 1341). 
-2- 445 

CAF 14-00178 

“The [father’s] failure . . . to provide any ‘realistic and feasible’

alternative to having the child[ ] remain in foster care until [his]

release from prison . . . supports a finding of permanent neglect”

(Matter of Gena S. [Karen M.], 101 AD3d 1593, 1594, lv dismissed 21

NY3d 975).

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Jones & Kirkpatrick, P.C., Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-4534, 333-4536, 333-4538, and 333-85705) on Form S-8 of SouthFirst
Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated November 19, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of SouthFirst Bancshares, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended September 30, 2002.

| |  |                              
| |  | -----------------------------
| |  | /s/ Jones & Kirkpatrick, P.C.

Birmingham, Alabama
December 23, 2002
EXHIBIT 23.1






Board of Directors and Stockholders
Cecil Bancorp, Inc.
Elkton, Maryland



                  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this
Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Cecil
Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated February 23,
2000, included in the 1998 Annual Report to Stockholders of
Cecil Bancorp, Inc.

    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statements (Form 10-KSB Number 0-24926)
of Cecil Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated
February 23, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference.

                   Simon Master & Sidlow, P.A.



Wilmington, Delaware
March 29, 2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francis Munderville, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 511]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered April 2, 1996, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 *573US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606).

The defendant has failed to raise any nonfrivolous issues in his *pro se*supplemental brief. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
EX 10.40 Noel Watson Consul Amend






AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 3 to the Consulting Agreement between Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (“Jacobs”) and Noel G. Watson (“Mr. Watson”) dated July 1, 2010 is made effective July 1, 2014.
WHEREAS, the Consulting Agreement provided for a initial term of one (1) year, renewable for additional periods by mutual agreement of the parties;  
WHEREAS, Mr. Watson and Jacobs have previously mutually agreed to renew the Consulting Agreement until June 30, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Watson and Jacobs desire to renew the Consulting Agreement for a period commending on July 1, 2014 and ending on December 31, 2014.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the valuable promises and the agreements contained herein, it is agreed as follows:
		
	1.
	The Consulting Agreement shall be extended through December 31, 2014; and




		
	2.
	All other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 3 effective as of July 1, 2014.




	
			
	Noel G. Watson
	 
	Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

	/s/ Noel G. Watson
	 
	/s/ Craig L. Martin

	 
	 
	By: Craig L. Martin, President & CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2732 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2732

 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2009

 Mr. McClintock (for himself, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. 
 Jordan of Ohio, Mr. Chaffetz, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Marchant, 
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. 
Lee of New York, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Bilbray, and Mr. Rooney) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rewarding Achievement and 
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act'' or the ``RAISE Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

    Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive 
representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of 
any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, nothing 
in either--
            ``(1) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or
            ``(2) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed 
        or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater 
wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her 
services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such 
contract or agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,395,002                 482,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 64,632,674              40,023,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,591,341               1,898,835
<PP&E>                                         290,023               1,268,383
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0               (573,352)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,708,982<F1>          43,100,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       47,591,302              38,759,411
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       349,128                  56,460
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,768,552               4,284,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,708,982              43,100,283
<SALES>                                     53,701,005              50,599,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,203,029              50,960,266
<CGS>                                       49,179,140              44,451,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,179,140              44,451,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,259,317               7,236,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,497                  57,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,258,925)               (784,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,258,925)               (784,858)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,258,925)               (784,858)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)                  (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)                  (0.19)
<FN>
<F1>Includes $5,799,942 of Goodwill
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Terry Tane, Respondent, v Whipple-Allen Construction Co., Inc., Defendant, and Chadwick Bay Hotel Corporation, Doing Business as Sheraton Harborfront Inn, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Bekins Distribution Services Co. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[667 NYS2d 587]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and summary judgment against defendants and third-party defendants denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment against defendants and third-party defendants based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiff did not move for summary judgment against third-party defendants on that ground and, more importantly, *1062did not assert any claim against them. In any event, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “merely permits the jury to infer negligence from the circumstances of the occurrence. The jury is thus allowed—but not compelled—to draw the permissible inference” *(Kambat v St. Francis Hosp.,*89 NY2d 489, 495). Consequently, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not entitle a plaintiff to summary judgment. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,480
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       83
<ALLOWANCES>                                        30
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,533
<PP&E>                                         273,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                 122,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,350
<BONDS>                                        198,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,485
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,993
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    373
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (152.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (152.00)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

                          Independent Auditor's Report








<PAGE>





                                                                      Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements number
33-33536,  33-40551, 33-40552, 33-40553, 33-40554, 33-51100, 33-51102, 33-51320,
and 333-40237 of Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated
June 7, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Reynolds, Smith and
Hills, Inc. for the years ended March 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000.


/s/ Deloitte and Touche LLP

Certified Public Accountants
Jacksonville, FL
June 24, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.01



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 of CyberGuard Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Hammack, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Scott Hammack      
|-----------------------
|                       
|Scott Hammack          
|Chief Executive Officer
|October 23, 2003       



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cyberguard Corporation and will be retained by Cyberguard Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Kenneth T. Myers, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the registrant, Digital Lightwave, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2008



By:

/s/ KENNETH T. MYERSKenneth T. MyersChief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer)