alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-K/A
 (Amendment No. 1)
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Commission file number 000-21671
 THE NATIONAL BANK OF INDIANAPOLIS CORPORATION
 (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
 Indiana(State or Other Jurisdiction of 
Incorporation or Organization)
    
    35-1887991(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)107 North Pennsylvania Street 
Indianapolis, Indiana(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    46204(Zip Code)
 (317) 261-9000  (Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None
 Securities registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock
 Yes o No þ
 o þ
 þ o
 þ
  Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer þ
    
    Non-accelerated filer o (do not check if a smaller reporting company)
    
    Smaller reporting company o
 Yes o No þ




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE
  Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules
 (a)(3)
    
    The following exhibits are filed as part of this report on Form 10-K/A:31.1
    
    Certificate of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/Rule 15d-14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended31.2
    
    Certificate of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/Rule 15d-14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  (Registrant) The National Bank of Indianapolis CorporationBy (Signature and Title)
    
    /s/ Morris L. Maurer
    
    March 23, 2009Morris L. Maurer, President (Principal Executive Officer)
    
    Date




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 31.1
    
    Certificate of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/Rule 15d-14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended31.2
    
    Certificate of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/Rule 15d-14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
#### HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY *v.*UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S AND COMPANIES COLLECTIVE ET AL.

*Maurice T. FitzMaurice,*in support of the petition.

*Linda J. Morkan*and *Jeffrey J. White,*in opposition.

Decided June 24, 2010

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 121 Conn. App. 31 (AC 30162), is denied.

ROGERS, C. J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**











**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Weingarten Realty Investors (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
      C. Richter, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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











BY:
            /s/
                Stephen C. RichterStephen
                C. RichterExecutive
                Vice President/Chief Financial OfficerAugust
                9, 2006











A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Weingarten Realty Investors and will be retained by Weingarten and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
April 11 , 2013



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEONARD WICKERS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 01055

- CV V.

AMERICAN SOUTHWEST I NSURANCE MANAGERS, I NC. D/B/A

STATEWIDE CLAIMS SERVICE , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on October 19, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

.

We furth er order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Leonard Wickers.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Terrence Wayne LYTLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lawrence PARSONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-6057.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 22, 2014.

*205Terrence Wayne Lytle, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Wayne Lytle seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lytle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lytle’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Toby Dean BEQUETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-5394.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 10, 2014.

Before: SILER, GILMAN, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Toby Dean Bequette, a federal prisoner, appeals through counsel the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

*451Bequette was charged with this offense after he pawned a stolen firearm. He entered a guilty plea. The presentence report calculated his guidelines sentencing range at 57 to 71 months of imprisonment. Bequette objected that his 1994 Florida conviction of robbery should not be counted as a crime of violence under USSG §§ 4B1.2 and 2K2.1(a)(3). Without a previous conviction of a crime of violence, the guidelines range would have been 30 to 37 months of imprisonment. Bequette argued that because the Florida statute defined robbery as accomplished by the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear, he may have committed a robbery by putting in fear, which would not necessarily be a crime of violence. The parties presented argument on this issue at the sentencing hearing. The district court concluded that the Florida robbery conviction was a crime of violence and sentenced Bequette at the bottom of the resulting guidelines range. Bequette reasserts his argument on appeal.

A determination that a prior offense is a crime of violence is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Evans,*699 F.3d 858, 862 (6th Cir.2012). The Eleventh Circuit, which encompasses Florida, has persuasively held that robbery as defined in the Florida statute is a crime of violence and a violent felony. *United States v. Lockley,*632 F.3d 1238, 1240-45 (11th Cir.2011); *United States v. Wilkerson,*286 F.3d 1324, 1325 (11th Cir.2002). We have likewise determined that robbery under a Tennessee statute, which also includes putting in fear as an element, is categorically a violent felony. *United States v. Mitchell,*743 F.3d 1054, 1059-60 (6th Cir.2014). *See also United States v. Taylor,*696 F.3d 628, 630-33 (6th Cir.2012) (upholding determination that larceny under a similar Michigan statute is violent felony). Bequette also argues that the Florida robbery statute is overbroad, such that it cannot be a crime of violence, citing *Descamps v. United States,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013). However, in *Mitchell,*743 F.3d at 1066, we rejected a similar argument, finding that the accomplishment of robbery by putting in fear was not broader than the generic definition of robbery.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 23, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00686

- CV

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant

v.

City of Dallas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNT Y
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GO ODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN ; DISSENTING OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 3, 2013. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgmen t

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                   under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1)
Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Productivity Technologies
Corp. for the year ended June 30, 2002 as to which this Certification is an
exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Productivity Technologies
Corp.

Signed this 14th day of November, 2002.

/s/ Samuel N. Seidman
------------------------
    Samuel N. Seidman
    Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

/s/ Jesse A. Levine
------------------------
    Jesse A. Levine
    Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,651,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,873,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   135,000
<INVENTORY>                                    116,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,146,000
<PP&E>                                      31,973,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,517,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,448,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,826,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,761,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,448,000
<SALES>                                      1,199,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,190,000
<CGS>                                          527,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,683,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               993,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                575,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            552,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   552,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VINCENT HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Vin Rock, a/k/a Barrack,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:10-cr-00266-JFM-3; 1:15-cv-00802-JFM)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph Enright, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, 

Joshua Thomas Ferrentino, Assistant United States Attorney,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Hernandez 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN



 Exhibit 10.1 
 MICROSTRATEGY INCORPORATED 
 Second Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Option Plan 
 Amendment to Stock Option Agreement for Non-Employee Director 
 This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Stock Option Agreement for Non-Employee Director relating to that certain stock option granted by MicroStrategy Incorporated (the “Company”) to F. David Fowler
(the “Participant”) on June 7, 2001 (the “Option Agreement”), is made by the Company pursuant to Section 7(h) of the MicroStrategy Incorporated Second Amended and Restated 1999 Stock Option Plan, as may be amended (the
“Plan”). Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings given them in the Plan. The Option Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. Section 2 of the Option Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be inserted in lieu thereof: 
 “2. Vesting Schedule. 
 As used herein, the term “vested” shall mean that portion of this option that is exercisable. This option shall vest in accordance with the following schedule: (i) no portion of this option shall be
vested prior to the first anniversary of your Date of Grant; (ii) twenty percent (20%) of this option shall be vested on the first anniversary of your Date of Grant; (iii) twenty percent (20%) of this option shall be vested on
the second anniversary of your Date of Grant; (iv) twenty percent (20%) of this option shall be vested on the third anniversary of your Date of Grant; (iv) twenty percent (20%) of this option shall be vested on the fourth
anniversary of your Date of Grant; and (v) twenty percent (20%) of this option shall be vested on May 26, 2006; (such that this option shall be vested in full on May 26, 2006). The right of exercise shall be cumulative so that if
you do not exercise this option to the maximum extent permissible in any period, it shall continue to be exercisable, in whole or in part, with respect to all vested shares until the earlier of the Expiration Date or the termination of this option
under Section 3 below or under the Plan.” 
 2. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Option Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 3. This Amendment shall be governed by Virginia law except for that body of law pertaining
to conflict of laws. 
 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 







 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officer. 
  

					
		 	MICROSTRATEGY INCORPORATED
			
	Date: May 30, 2006	 	By:	 	 /s/ Jonathan F. Klein

		 	Name:	 	Jonathan F. Klein
		 	Title:	 	Vice President, Law & General Counsel

  

 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints R.
Scott Wheeler, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power
of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign any or all amendments to this report, and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto,a nd other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorney-in-fact and agent, 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 he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent
or any of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     /s/ Richard N. Beckert                               March 30, 2000
-------------------------------------
Richard N. Beckert

     /s/ Robert A. Whitman                                March 30, 2000
-------------------------------------
Robert A. Whitman

     /s/ Richard M. FitzPatrick                           March 30, 2000
-------------------------------------
Richard M. FitzPatrick

     /s/ Daniel A. Decker                                 March 30, 2000
-------------------------------------
Daniel A. Decker

    /s/ James T. Hands                                    March 30, 2000
-------------------------------------
James T. Hands

    /s/ William M. Kearns, Jr.                            March 30, 2000
-------------------------------------
William M. Kearns, Jr.

    /s/ Steven D. Scheetz                                 March 30, 2000
-------------------------------------
Steven D. Scheetz

   /s/ Bert W. Wasserman                                  March 30, 2000
-------------------------------------
Bert W. Wasserman
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Tuesday, November 14, 2023

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 

20004 (enter from F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor on behalf of Hargis v. Vulcan 

Construction Materials, LLC, Docket Nos. SE 2021-0163, et al. 

(Issues include whether the Judge erred in terminating economic 

temporary reinstatement on the date he issued the merits decision; 

(2) whether the Judge erred in dismissing the Complainant’s 

discrimination case on the basis that there was no improper 

discriminatory motive; and (3) whether the Judge erred in finding 

that the operator failed to report an occupational injury, in violation 

of 30 C.F.R. § 50.20(a).) 

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility 

features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, 

must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 

29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING: 1-(866) 236-7472

Passcode: 678-100

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

Dated: November 1, 2023

__________________________________

Michael A. McCord

General Counsel

Billing Code 6735-01