alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**SECOND AMENDMENT TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

ThisSecond Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is effective asof the 1st day of August, 2005 (the “Effective Date”) by and betweenProspect Medical Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Employer”) and JacobY. Terner, M.D. (“Employee”) with reference to the following:

 

a.             Employerand Employee previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of August1, 1999 providing for the employment of Employee (the “Original EmploymentAgreement”)

 

b.             TheOriginal Employment Agreement was amended effective August 1, 2002 by means ofthat Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “First Amendment”) which, amongother things, extended the term of the Employment Agreement until August 1, 2005(the Original Employment Agreement as amended by the First Amendment ishereinafter referred to as the “Employment Agreement”).

 

c.             Employerand Employee have agreed to extend the term of the Employment Agreement for anadditional three (3) years ending August 1, 2008.

 

d.             Bythis Second Amendment, Employer and Employee desire to modify the EmploymentAgreement to reflect the extension of the term.

 

FORGOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,Employer and Employee agree to and hereby amend the Employment Agreement in thefollowing respects.

** **

**1.             Contract Term.**  Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement ishereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “The initialterm of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall continuefor a period of three (3) years, subject to the earlier termination of thisAgreement as provided herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term of this Agreement may beextended for subsequent terms (each, an extension term) upon the mutualagreement of Employer and Employee.  ThisAgreement shall have an extension term commencing August 1, 2005 and endingAugust 1, 2008.”

** **

**2.             Employment Agreement Continued.**  Except as modified by thisSecond Amendment, the Employment Agreement is ratified and shall continue inall respects.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, Employer and Employee have executed this Second Amendment asof the date set forth above.

 
| **“EMPLOYER”**            | “**EMPLOYEE”** |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------|
| ** **                          |                     |
| **PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.** | ** **               |
| ** **                          | ** **               |
| ** **                          | ** **               |
| By:                                 | /s/ Mike Heather         | ** ** | /s/ Jacob Y. Terner, M.D |   |
|                                | Mike Heather             | ** ** | Jacob Y. Terner, M.D. |   |
|                                | Chief Financial Officer  | ** ** |   |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund IV L.P. (the “Fund”) on Form10-K for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc N. Teal, Sr.Vice President of C&M Management Inc. and Director of Accounting of BostonCapital Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge, after due inquiry:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Fund.

 

 
|           | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund IV L.P. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           |
|           | By:                                                                  | Boston Capital Associates IV L.P. |
|           |                                                                 | General Partner |
|           |
|           | By:                                                                  | BCA Associates Limited Partnership, |
|           |                                                                 | General Partner |
|           |                                                                 |   |
|           | By:                                                                  | C&M Management Inc., |
|           |                                                                 | General Partner |
|           |                                                                 |   |
| Date:          |                                                                 |   |
| July 15,  2003 | By:                                                                  | /s/ Marc  N. Teal |   |
|           |                                                                 |   |
|           |                                                                 | Marc N. Teal |
|           |                                                                 | Sr. Vice  President |
|                |                                                                      |  |  |  |

 

----
From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Eloise Shepherd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 06/08/2012 04:15 PM Subject: Monday Afternoon Call


### We're holding 3:00
- 4:30 for a Monday conference call to discuss responses to interagency comments related to the secondary standard. Please let me know if that works for your folks or if you have any questions. Thanks, Nathan
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.1


TETRA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
CASH INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
Amendment No. 2


This Amendment No. 2 (this "Amendment")  is made and entered into effective February 23, 2016, by TETRA Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), as follows:
WHEREAS, the TETRA Technologies, Inc. Cash Incentive Compensation Plan (the "Plan") is maintained for the benefit of certain eligible persons as set forth in the Plan; 


WHEREAS, Section 9.7 of the Plan allows the Committee to amend the Plan at any time and from time to time;


WHEREAS, the Company’s management and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Committee") believes it to be generally in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan to provide for greater administrative flexibility; and


WHEREAS, the Committee desires to effectuate the changes set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1.    The first sentence of Section 5.4 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:


"All Awards under the Plan shall be payable in cash or other property (in the sole discretion of the Committee)."    


2.    Section 8.5 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


"Award Payments will be paid in cash or other property (in the sole discretion of the Committee) after the end of the Performance Period and completion of the outside audit of financial results.  Award Payments will be paid (if at all) no later than December 31st of the calendar year immediately following the calendar year to which the Performance Period relates. Except as provided in Section 9.5 and 9.6, a Participant must be employed on the date Award Payments are paid in order to receive payment under an Award."


3.    A new Section 9.8 is added to the Plan to read as follows:


"9.8    Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, including, without limitation, Section 5.4 and Section 8.5, the Committee shall have the unilateral right to satisfy any obligation under this Plan with (i) cash, (ii) the grant of an equity award under the Company’s long-term incentive plans (subject to the terms and conditions of such applicable plans) or (iii) any other property deemed appropriate by the Committee."


4.    Except as otherwise set forth in this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

1








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment effective as first written above.




TETRA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


By: /s/ Stuart M. Brightman
Printed Name:  Stuart M. Brightman
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer



2
PUBLIC LAW 110–1—JAN. 17, 2007 121 STAT. 3

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 159:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):

Jan. 4, considered and passed Senate.

Jan. 5, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 110–1

110th Congress

An Act

To redesignate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in the State of Vermont

as the ‘‘Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ROBERT T. STAFFORD WHITE ROCKS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.

(a) REDESIGNATION.—The White Rocks National Recreation

Area in the State of Vermont, as established by section 202 of

the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. 460nn–1), is redesignated as the ‘‘Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation

Area’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the recreation area referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be

a reference to the Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area.

Approved January 17, 2007.

16 USC 460nn,

460nn–1,

460nn–3.

16 USC 460nn–1

note.

Jan. 17, 2007

[S. 159]
# C_2010317EN.01004903.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/49

---

Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Dubus v Parliament

(Case F-86/10)

()

2010/C 317/89

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Charles Dubus (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision by the European Parliament not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted from grade AST3 to AST4 for the 2009 promotions year.

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

| — | Annul the decision by the European Parliament not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted from grade AST3 to AST4 for the 2009 promotions year; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision by the European Parliament not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted from grade AST3 to AST4 for the 2009 promotions year;

| — | in consequence of such annulment, carry out a fresh comparative examination of the merits of the applicant and other candidates for the 2009 promotions year and promote the applicant to grade AST4 with retrospective effect from 1 January 2009; interest on arrears of remuneration as from 1 January 2009 at two points above the European Central Bank rate for main refinancing operations; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence of such annulment, carry out a fresh comparative examination of the merits of the applicant and other candidates for the 2009 promotions year and promote the applicant to grade AST4 with retrospective effect from 1 January 2009; interest on arrears of remuneration as from 1 January 2009 at two points above the European Central Bank rate for main refinancing operations;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 32




                         CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of AccessTel, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to
such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                                       /s/ KEVIN MARION
Date:  November 19, 2004                          By:_______________________
                                                  Kevin Marion
                                                  President and Chief
                                                  Financial Officer
§ 367.1460 Account 146, Accounts receivable from associate companies. ( a ) This account must include notes and drafts upon which associate companies are liable, and that mature and are expected to be paid in full not later than one year from the date of issue, together with any related interest thereon, and debit balances subject to current settlement in open accounts with associate companies. Items that do not bear a specified due date but that have been carried for more than twelve months and items that are not paid within twelve months from due date must be transferred to account 123, Investment in associate companies (§ 367.1230).
( b ) On the balance sheet, accounts receivable from an associate company may be set off against accounts payable to the same company.
( c ) The face amount of notes receivable discounted, sold or transferred without releasing the service company from liability as the related endorser, must be credited to a separate subaccount of this account and appropriate disclosure must be made in financial statements of any contingent liability arising from the transactions.
#### § 34.4 Required exhibits.

(a) *Exhibit A.* The applicant must file the statement of corporate purposes from its articles of incorporation.

(b) *Exhibit B.* A copy of all resolutions of the applicant's directors authorizing the issuance of securities for which the application is made; and copies of the resolution of the stockholders approving such issuance if approval of the stockholders has been obtained.

(c) *Exhibit C.* The Balance Sheet and attached notes for the most recent 12-month period for which financial statements have been published, provided that the 12-month period ended no more than 4 months prior to the date of the filing of the application, on both an actual basis and a pro forma basis in the form prescribed for the “Comparative Balance Sheet” of FERC Form No. 1, “Annual Report for major electric utilities, licensees and others.” Each adjustment made in determining the pro forma basis must be clearly identified.

(d) *Exhibit D.* The Income Statement and attached notes for the most recent 12-month period for which financial statements have been published, provided that the 12-month period ended no more than 4 months prior to the date of the filing of the application, on both an actual basis and a pro forma basis in the form prescribed for the “Statement of Income for the Year” of FERC Form No. 1, “Annual Report for major electric utilities, licensees and others.” Each adjustment made in determining the pro forma basis must be clearly identified.

(e) *Exhibit E.* A Statement of Cash Flows and Computation of Interest Coverage on an actual basis and a pro forma basis for the most recent 12-month period for which financial statements have been published, provided that the 12-month period ended no more than 4 months prior to the date of the filing of the application. The Statement of Cash Flows must be in the form prescribed for the “Statement of Cash Flows” of the FERC Form No. 1, Annual Report for major electric utilities, licensees and others,” followed by a computation of interest coverage, in the form of the following worksheet:

| Federal Energy Regulatory Commission worksheet for computation of interest coverage | Actual for the year ended mm-dd-yy | OMB control No. 1902-0043, pro forma for the year ended mm-dd-yy |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Net income | | |
| Add: Interest on Long-Term Debt, Interest on Short-Term Debt, Other Interest Expense, Total Interest Expense | | |
| Federal and State Income Taxes | | |
| Income Before Interest and Income Taxes | | |
| Computation of Interest Coverage | | |
| Income Before Interest and Income Taxes ÷ Total Interest Expense = Interest Coverage | | |

(f) *Exhibit F.* A copy of registration statement and exhibits which are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the proposed security issuance.

[Order 182, 46 FR 50514, Oct. 14, 1981, as amended by Order 390, 49 FR 32505, Aug. 14, 1984; Order 575, 60 FR 4853, Jan. 25, 1995; 60 FR 27882, May 26, 1995]
### §690f. Fees

#### (a) In general

Except as provided in section 690e(d) of this title, the Administrator may charge such fees as it determines appropriate with respect to any guarantee or grant issued under this part, in an amount established annually by the Administrator, as necessary to reduce to zero the cost (as defined in section 661a of title 2) to the Administration of purchasing and guaranteeing debentures under this part, which amounts shall be paid to and retained by the Administration.

#### (b) Offset

The Administrator may, as provided by section 690g of this title, offset fees charged and collected under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 85–699, title III, §387, as added Pub. L. 110–140, title XII, §1207, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1780.)
Exhibit 32.2



Statement 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of CROWN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. (the Company) for the year ended January 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert I. Turner, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |                                                                               
|------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|             |  | /s/ ROBERT I. TURNER                                                          
|Name: Title: |  | Robert I. Turner Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer



Date: March 9, 2004
### §324. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 3, 1948, ch. 400, title III, 62 Stat. 328, which related to extra compensation for certain employees in Alaska and other territorial possessions, was from the Department of Commerce Appropriation Act, 1949, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriations acts. See section 327 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Similar Provisions

Similar provisions were contained in the following appropriation acts:

July 9, 1947, ch. 211, title III, 61 Stat. 301.

July 5, 1946, ch. 541, title III, 60 Stat. 475.

May 21, 1945, ch. 129, title III, 59 Stat. 195.

June 28, 1944, ch. 294, title III, 58 Stat. 424.

July 1, 1943, ch. 182, title III, 57 Stat. 301.
#### Vittorio E. M. Simeone *vs.*Maria Angela Simeone.

FEBRUARY 20, 1953.

Present : Flynn, C. J., Capotosto, Baker, Condon and O’Connell, JJ.

*211Capotosto, J.

This is a motion by the respondent in a divorce action to dismiss an appeal by the petitioner from an interlocutory decree of the superior court granting allowances for support and counsel fees *pendente lite.*

To avoid confusion in stating the facts of record we will hereinafter refer to the husband as Vittorio and to the wife as Maria. In brief the facts upon which the parties agree are as follows. In 1951 a petition for divorce by Maria was heard and denied by the superior court. From a decree to that- effect she commenced proceedings for a review in this court, in the course of which upon her motion Vittorio was ordered by the superior court to pay her certain amounts for the cost of a transcript and for support pending the determination of her appeal. Vittorio thereupon claimed an appeal to this court from such decree.

In the meantime, however, Vittorio filed a petition for divorce against Maria, in which case the superior court also granted her certain allowances for support and counsel fees. From a decree in accordance with that order Vittorio appealed to this court and this is the appeal involved in the instant proceedings. He resists Maria’s motion to dismiss such appeal contending that the superior court was without jurisdiction or acted in excess thereof when it made a “double order for support,” and that in the circumstances his appeal was proper and should not be dismissed.

The instant case clearly falls within the rule stated in *Rosenfeld*v. *Rosenfeld,*51 R. I. 381, namely, that an appeal will not lie from an interlocutory decree of the superior court granting allowances for support and counsel fees in a divorce case *pendente lite.*In his argument against the motion to dismiss his appeal Vittorio urged that the *Rosenfeld*case be overruled as harsh and improvident. After careful examination of that case we find no reason to change or modify the rule as therein stated and it is therefore affirmed in all particulars.

In view of the conclusion that we have just expressed, attention is directed to the language at page 384 of the *212opinion in the *Bosenfeld*case where the court stated that even though an appeal does not lie from an interlocutory-decree in a divorce case, yet an aggrieved party is not without legal remedy *“by appropriate proceedings,”*provided the error complained of resulted from “a clear abuse of judicial discretion” or there were “unusual circumstances rendering it necessary to promptly correct the same in order to prevent the consummation of injury beyond redress during the progress of the cause.” (italics ours) We are not called upon here to determine whether by its reference to “appropriate proceedings” the court had in mind certiorari as at common law or some other form of extraordinary writ.

*Israel Moses,*for petitioner.

*John S. Brunero,*for respondent.

The respondent’s motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal is granted, and the cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.