alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1






EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE

HEALTHMARKETS, INC.

NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT




     This SECOND AMENDMENT (the “Second Amendment”) to the Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement
effective as of June 26, 2006 between HealthMarkets, Inc. (the “Company”) and Troy A. McQuagge (the
“Optionee”), as amended by Amendment No. 1 effective March 21, 2008, (the “Agreement”), is hereby
adopted effective June 11, 2008, pursuant to Section 16 of the Agreement. Words and phrases used
herein with initial capital letters that are not defined herein shall have the meaning provided in
the Agreement.



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the Company and The Optionee are parties to a Transition Services Agreement dated
March 21, 2008;



     WHEREAS, the Company and The Optionee are parties to the Agreement; and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16 of the Agreement, the Company and the Optionee wish to amend
the Agreement, effective as of the date first written above, as set forth herein;



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and agreements contained herein and other good
and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, and
intending to be legally bound, the parties agree as follows:



I.




     In consideration of a payment of $225,000 from the Company to the Optionee, the Optionee
agrees to a reduction in the number of the Optionee’s Options that remain unvested after June 26,
2008 by one-third (1/3rd). Accordingly, each portion of the Options that vests after
June 26, 2008 of: (i) the Time-Based Tranche specified in Section 4(a), (ii) the Performance-Based
Tranche specified in Section 4(b) and (iii) the Tranche C Options Shares specified in Section 4(c)
of the Agreement shall be reduced by one-third (1/3rd).



     Except as expressly amended hereby, the provisions of the Agreement will remain in full force
and effect.



[Signature page follows.]




 









 





          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of June 11,
2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	HealthMarkets, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	Name:  	Michael A. Colliflower 	 
	 	Title:  	Executive Vice President &
General Counsel 	 
	 	Date:  	 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	
 	 
	 	Name:  	Troy A. McQuagge     	 
	 	Date:
#### INMAN v. LEISURE

No. 101P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 332

Petition by defendant (North American Van Lines) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 May 1990.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1211

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act

to authorize additional measures to carry out the control

of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective

manner.

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

S 1211 RFH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN

2 SALINITY CONTROL ACT.

3 Section 208(c) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity

4 Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1598(c)) is amended—

5 (1) in the first sentence—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘$75,000,000 for sub7 section 202(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘$175,000,000

8 for section 202(a)’’; and

9 (B) by striking ‘‘paragraph 202(a)(6)’’ and

10 inserting ‘‘paragraph (6) of section 202(a)’’;

11 and

12 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘para13 graph 202(a)(6)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 202(a)(6)’’.

14 SEC. 2. REPORT.

15 The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a report

16 on the status of implementation of the comprehensive pro17 gram for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado

18 River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land

19 Management directed by section 203(b)(3) of the Colorado

20 River Basin Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1593). The

21 report shall provide specific information on individual

22 projects and funding allocation. The report shall be trans23 mitted to the Committee on Energy and Natural Re-
3

S 1211 RFH

1 sources and the Committee on Resources of the House of

2 Representatives no later than June 30, 2000.

Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications to Support Rural Entrepreneurs and Create Jobs for 

People in Rural America

WASHINGTON, Nov. 23, 2022 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Under Secretary

Xochitl Torres Small today announced that USDA is accepting applications to support economic development and 

create jobs for people in rural America.

USDA is making this funding available under the Rural Business Development Grant program to support business 

opportunities or business enterprise projects in rural communities. Eligible entities are rural towns, communities, 

state agencies, authorities, nonprofits, federally recognized Tribes, public institutions of higher education and nonprofit cooperatives.

Business opportunity projects are used to identify and analyze business opportunities that will use local rural 

materials or human resources. These projects must be consistent with local and area-wide community and economic

development strategic plans. Projects must also support other economic development activities in the project area. 

They may include establishing business support centers or financing job training and leadership development in rural 

areas. Enterprise projects include the repair or modernization of buildings, technical assistance such as feasibility 

studies or business plans, or equipment purchases for leasing to small or emerging businesses.

In fiscal year 2023, USDA anticipates that part of the funding may be set aside for federally recognized Native 

American Tribes, Rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities/Rural Economic Area Partnerships, projects 

located in persistent poverty areas (including those of Native Americans), and Strategic Economic and Community 

Development (SECD) projects. Eligible applicants for the persistent poverty and SECD set-aside funds must 

demonstrate that 100% of the benefits of an approved grant will assist beneficiaries in the designated areas.

Applications for grants, including all set-aside funds, must be submitted in paper or electronic format to the USDA 

Rural Development State Office in the state where the project is located by 4:30 p.m. local time on Feb. 28, 2023. 

For additional information, visit Grants.gov or see page 71571 of the Nov. 23, 2022, Federal Register.

USDA Rural Development encourages applicants to consider projects that will advance key priorities under the 

Biden-Harris Administration to help rural America build back better and stronger. Key priorities include 

creating new and better markets, addressing the impacts of climate change and advancing equity in rural 

America. For more information, visit https://www.rd.usda.gov/priority-points.

To subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
§ 351.11 Identification and separation of technical animal fats for certification and materials for use therein; removal of wrappers, etc.; cleaning of equipment. ( a ) All technical animal fat to be offered for certification under this part and materials to be used in the preparation of such fat, and all certified technical animal fat, shall be identified and kept separate from other products from the time of receipt at a certified plant and throughout processing or handling at such plant. All wrappers and packaging shall be removed from the source materials to the fullest extent practicable before the materials are rendered at the plant.
( b ) If a plant's operations are within the provisions of § 351.14(b)(3), all equipment shall be cleaned before it is used for receiving, preparation, or storage of certified technical animal fats or material to be used in preparation of such fats. Such cleaning shall be done in such manner as to prevent contamination of such certified fats or source material with materials that are unacceptable under § 351.3.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135489 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135489 

 COA: 270047 

Kent CC: 05-003497-FC 

ANTHONY LAMONT MAY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0317 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 24, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000835541
<NAME> SOLECTRON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-28-1998
<CASH>                                         225,228
<SECURITIES>                                    83,576
<RECEIVABLES>                                  674,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,999)
<INVENTORY>                                    788,519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,887,558
<PP&E>                                         859,831
<DEPRECIATION>                               (411,792)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,410,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          840,834
<BONDS>                                        385,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           117
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,181,209
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,410,568
<SALES>                                      5,288,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,288,294
<CGS>                                        4,749,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,749,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               237,063
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,254
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                298,983
<INCOME-TAX>                                   100,159
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            198,159
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   198,159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00266

- CR

James Lewis Coquat
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. LCR190050

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
August 30, 2022
### §906. Air Station Cape Cod Improvements

The Secretary may expend funds for the repair, improvement, restoration, or replacement of those federally or nonfederally owned support buildings, including appurtenances, which are on leased or permitted real property constituting Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod, located on Massachusetts Military Reservation, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

(Added Pub. L. 103–206, title III, §303(a), Dec. 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 2423, §671; renumbered §906, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §107(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4205.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 671 of this title as this section.
### §635c. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–429, title I, §121(c)(1), Oct. 21, 1992, 106 Stat. 2199

Section, act July 31, 1945, ch. 341, §5, 59 Stat. 528, related to reimbursement of Reconstruction Finance Corporation for cancellation of Bank stock, public debt transactions, and payment of accumulated dividends.
#### Shante Cruz et al., Appellants, v David C. Williams et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 510]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 27, 2005, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden of showing that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The affirmed medical reports of the defendants’ examining neurologist concerning both plaintiffs established that there were limitations in range of motion of the lumbar spine of the plaintiff Shante Cruz and limitations in the range of motion of the cervical spine of the plaintiff Sandra Ramos, which were not adequately quantified or qualified so as to establish that these limitations were insignificant *(see Kaminsky v Waldner,*19 AD3d 370 [2005]). Since the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary for this Court to consider whether the papers submitted in opposition to the motion raised a triable issue of fact *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
tenant has not paid rent. See NRS 40.255(3)(a) (indicating that the

purchaser has the same rights and obligations as the previous landlord, as defined in NRS Chapter 118A); NRS 40.254 (authorizing a summary eviction action when the tenant of a dwelling unit subject to NRS Chapter 118A is guilty of an unlawful detainer).

Here, real party in interest, acting as the agent for the entity that purchased the subject dwelling unit, had the right to institute a summary eviction proceeding once petitioner failed to pay rent. NRS 40.255(3); NRS 40.254. At this point, petitioner could have filed with the justice court an affidavit stating that he was "not in default in the payment of the rent." NRS 40.253(3)(b)(1). Because petitioner filed no such affidavit, there was "no legal defense as to the alleged unlawful detainer" that would have required formal unlawful detainer proceedings pursuant to NRS 40.290-.420, and the justice court properly issued a summary eviction order. NRS 40.253(6).

Thus, petitioner's argument that NRS 40.255(2) required real party in interest to institute a formal unlawful detainer proceeding is unavailing. To the extent that petitioner has raised alternative arguments in support of writ relief, we conclude that these arguments do

'Although real party in interest asserts that petitioner owed $1,250 in monthly rent despite petitioner's lease agreement setting rent at $500 per month, petitioner did not establish that he offered to pay the $500 in monthly rent to real party in interest or that he was willing to deposit this amount with the court. See NRS 118A.490(1) (requiring a tenant to pay

" any rent which is not in dispute" during the pendency of an action for possession of a leased dwelling unit).

2J.

not warrant this court's extraordinary intervention. Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED. 2

Parraguirre

HARDESTY, J., concurring:

Although I concur in the judgment of the panel, I would resolve this matter in a published opinion. At the very least, this case presents a novel question of law. See Internal Operating Procedures Rule 9(a).

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Reade & Associates Edward D. Kania Eighth District Court Clerk

2 Having considered petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a supplemental appendix, we grant it. In light of our disposition, we vacate the stay entered by this court on June 14, 2013.

3
#### §§ 201.300-201.301 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00064-FDW; 3:83-cr-00050-FDW-1)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that DeBardeleben

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 the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order entered July 18 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00349 - CV THE CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant /Cross - Appellee V. TRINITY EAST ENERGY, LLC, Appellee /Cross - Appellant On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 14 - 01443



### O RDER We GRANT the July 15, 2016 joint motion to extend time to file response briefs and ORDER the briefs filed no later than August 29, 20 16

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
# C_2007020EN.01002801.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/28

---

Action brought on 6 December 2006 — Xinhui Alida Polythene v Council

(Case T-364/06)

(2007/C 20/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xinhui Alida Polythene Ltd (Xinhui, China) (represented by: C. Munro, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment, pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty of the European Union, of Council Regulation 1425/2006 of 25 September 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment, pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty of the European Union, of Council Regulation 1425/2006 of 25 September 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the appellant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the appellant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1425/2006 of 25 September 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand, and terminating the proceeding on imports of certain plastic sacks and bags originating in Malaysia (1).

1

The applicant contends that the Council has infringed essential procedural requirements and misused its powers by adopting the contested regulation without properly considering the underlying proceedings conducted by the Commission.

According to the applicant, the Commission i) did not properly examine the standing of the complainants and/or failed to make a proper determination of their standing, ii) considered irrelevant information and/or failed to take available information into account, iii) made an inadequate assessment of the injury to the relevant Community industry, iv) failed to establish that there was a Community interest in imposing duties on imports, and v) infringed the applicant's rights of defence.

The applicant alleges that this amounts to an abuse of powers.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 270, p. 4.

1

---