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






Exhibit 10.13
FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE 
FIRST COMMUNITY FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC. 2013 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, First Community Financial Partners, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the First Community Financial Partners, Inc. 2013 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2013 Plan”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to and subject to Section 6.1 of the 2013 Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend the 2013 Plan at any time; and
WHEREAS, the Board deems it to be in the best interests of the Company to amend the 2013 Plan to increase the maximum number of shares of common stock of the Company, no par value per share (“Shares”), that may be delivered under the 2013 Plan by 900,000 Shares, from 100,000 Shares to 1,000,000 Shares.
NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date of Board approval of this First Amendment, the 2013 Plan is hereby amended in the following particulars:
		
	1.
	Section 3.2(a) of the 2013 Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


(a)    Share Reserve.  Subject to the following provisions of this Section 3.2, the maximum number of Shares that may be delivered under the 2013 Plan shall be 1,000,000 Shares.  The maximum number of Shares available for delivery under the 2013 Plan and the number of Shares subject to outstanding Awards shall be subject to adjustment as provided in Section 3.4.”
		
	2.
	In all other respects, the 2013 Plan remains unchanged and in full force and effect.
### §14c. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, act June 28, 1941, ch. 259, §1, 55 Stat. 350, related to availability of appropriations for expense of recording donated lands. See section 103101(b) of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
### §8542. Interagency weather research and forecast innovation coordination

#### (a) Establishment

The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall establish an Interagency Committee for Advancing Weather Services to improve coordination of relevant weather research and forecast innovation activities across the Federal Government. The Interagency Committee shall—

(1) include participation by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and its constituent elements, the National Science Foundation, and such other agencies involved in weather forecasting research as the President determines are appropriate;

(2) identify and prioritize top forecast needs and coordinate those needs against budget requests and program initiatives across participating offices and agencies; and

(3) share information regarding operational needs and forecasting improvements across relevant agencies.

#### (b) Co-chair

The Federal Coordinator for Meteorology shall serve as a co-chair of this panel.

#### (c) Further coordination

The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall take such other steps as are necessary to coordinate the activities of the Federal Government with those of the United States weather industry, State governments, emergency managers, and academic researchers.

(Pub. L. 115–25, title IV, §402, Apr. 18, 2017, 131 Stat. 106.)
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 646 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require a full military honors 

ceremony for certain deceased veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2019 

Mr. COTTON (for himself, Ms. HASSAN, and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require a full 

military honors ceremony for certain deceased veterans, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Full Military Honors 

5 Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FULL MILITARY HONORS CEREMONY FOR CERTAIN 

7 VETERANS. 

8 Section 1491(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 646 IS

1 ‘‘(3) The Secretary concerned shall provide full mili2 tary honors (as determined by the Secretary concerned) 

3 for the funeral of a veteran who— 

4 ‘‘(A) is first interred or first inurned in Arling5 ton National Cemetery on or after the date of the 

6 enactment of the Full Military Honors Act of 2019; 

7 ‘‘(B) was awarded the medal of honor or the 

8 prisoner-of-war medal; and 

9 ‘‘(C) is not entitled to full military honors by 

10 the grade of that veteran.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
### Part A—Cane River Creole National Historical Park
### SUBCHAPTER III—NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
**AUSTIN**

0 avail himexecute an

~Comptr0ller, 

### and warrat **t hu0e**  **by** the ComptrellrT alwe 8oElpeny.we deslro 00

### 724

EonorabloJullau Lieatgomwy, Page 2

Faauranoe? The Department, of oourse, oould not pay eny portion of the premium.

92) cprr my potil0n 0r ti ~i0pdt3 rages or salary,

when aasigmant hem beea &on. be p a l 6 t o lOIDI)OIU elm? “(3) AzmAmlBg that your answer to the aeoond inquiry 18 *yea*, and, that mom43 plan 0r group ineuraaoo *aa seoounded to the employees or the **Dopwtandthat several**  **th0gaand** or OUT **cslppiope~** b0uat the **aorerage** and aade asslg0amnts authorircm payrolldeduotlon; thle uould repulra a **pat deal**  0r extr.awork on.the part or oar aooountantsin making up addltioaal payrellr,,

eto. Would it.

bo lo& to aa0 our **aooountfats** ror thirr purpo~.P" We are unable to find any reason rby amployaam or the Hi&hway Department8hould net be allowed to .awd.l thammltes or group iasaraaoa. This woald be paralp a privateuudertaking, and there lo nothing in tbair CMployaantby the State oi Tsxae whioh wbuld.,problblt.iiuah an enterpriseon their part.

In armor to your quostionu mabared (8) and (3) . w6 p a ys

p a r tl o ul a r

a tt e ntio nt o yo urlt s t e s a nt that the adoption or the plan proposed wald req@re a @peat deal or 

### extranork on tha part or tha aooountants of tba x@hway 

### Department.Th6rs is no need or disouqifiag the fafmlbillty

or lagalityof any plan whioh would raqtairs the usa or atate amployoosfor a privateputpo~a.

nrtiolo xv1, hotion 6, coostitution 0r Texas, **provide8** : 90 appropriation for private **or** irrdivldual~ purposes &all bo aads. A ra&.ar etatemant, under oath, and by ammxit of Cha rsoeipts and expenditures

of all pu&lieamnay shall be published annually, in eooh matmet as &al.1 beEonorableJuliau IWitgomery,Page ;5

presorlbedby law."
Brom the above quoted provision it may bs aseu that the Legislature doss 

### net hara the authority to appropriate money to ba used for a private or Individual P-P-.* It thereforeto&lous beyond questfon that money rhioh the Legislaturehas appropriated nay not ba used ror suoh a purpose. To use state eaployessas aaoouutantsror a group or esiployws taking out group lnsuranae,would be,to usa suoh anployeaufor a private purpose, and weuld be tha orpenditureof state money ror a private purpose. imy plan **0r** group lnsuranae nhieh ukas this rsquireaautis unauthorized **and** my not be approved.
Yours very truly
John E. Rodarte Sr. Fourth Court Of Appeals

T-B-CJ.* 1263270 300 Dolorosa St-,i!3200

Clements Unit San Antonio,Texas 78205

9601 Spur 591

Amarillo,Texas 79107-9606

December 29,2014

RE: Yet Undocketed Appeal For Cause Rodarte Sr- Vs. Bexar...County, ■■ -,,

Texas,Sheriff Raljjh Lopez,Et Al 2005-CI-18884 en

Dear Clerk:

;: ■■

en

am writing ycur office,so that the proper modes of applicable

law dnd court proceedings may occur. had hearing under Bill Of

Review on October 20,2014 and was dismissed- My issue here,or issues

are simple,first,a hearing was conducted by judge,when jury should

have done,conducted the hearing on my concerns not the judge.

To add insult to injury,as caselaw would show,the issue of service

..-as an issue to be determined by jury Mercedes Benz Corp. Vs-Rhyne

Calctwell Vs.Barnes. A^airwthe case was already placed on the jury

docket ;"ol Se£ti;K.ber 2015, and was dismissed without any agreement

from me to rei/cve the case from jury docket for the hearing on

October 20,2014.

Thiss is co.iipour.6ed by my filing for new trial, which has not been

acknowledged,and appears to me that it is being denied under oper

ation of Jaw- Therefore,! must submit to further delay by going the

appeals route yet again.

an at my wits end,and feel that must litigate my civil rights

further in District Court by means of Title 42USC§1983,which would

encompass few of ray questionable handlec1 cases in Bexar County,

Texas,not because lost,but because the law was not adhered to

correctly,or only in the favor of those was against in court.

So to cover myself,I must request the forms,necessary for the

docketing of an appeal in this court for the above styled and

numbered cause of action. The case stated above,should have had its

day in court before jury.

Another thing,the law library here is severely inadequate and

non-compliant with the law, When it conies to having the same up to

date legal research materials as the state,prosecutors,and 'freeworld itigants thus an unfair advantage on all accountS

12/29/2014
October 18, 2000


Mr. William V. Roberti
14 Sweet Farm Retreat
Savannah, Georgia  31411

Dear Bill:

We are pleased with your  decision to join Duck Head as our  President and Chief
Operating Officer.

Your date of employment  will be Wednesday,  October 18, 2000.  Your annual base
salary will be $336,000.00.

Your first year bonus will be pro-rated by the number of weeks  remaining in F/Y
2001 which will be 39 or 75%. Your target bonus at 65% of base salary (pro-rated
at 75%)  would be  $163,800.  Note:  (For  this  F/Y  (2001)  only,  you will be
guaranteed  no less than  one-half the $163,800 or  $81,900.).  Your total bonus
potential can yield up to 150% which would be $245,700.  Bonus  eligibility  and
amounts are governed by our written Salaried Employee Bonus Program.

We will reimburse you for all direct  business  expenses.  In addition,  we will
provide you with living  accommodations and commutation  expenses.  The total of
these expenses is capped at $50,000 per year. The $50,000 will be grossed up for
tax purposes.

As a participant in the Duck Head Apparel Company Stock Option Plan, you will be
granted  the right to acquire up to 100,000  shares of its common  stock.  These
options vest over four years with 25% vesting on July 31, 2001 and an additional
25% vesting on each July 31 through  calendar year 2004. These options expire on
July 31, 2005.

You will also be included in the Duck Head Apparel Company  Incentive Stock Plan
with an award of 30,000 shares.

You will be eligible to participate  in our Group  Insurance Plan after 90 days.
This includes medical, dental, life and disability insurance. 401(k) eligibility
is after one month.

Your  participation  in the Stock Option Plan,  Incentive Stock Plan,  Insurance
Plan and the 401(k) Plan is governed by the terms of the Plan  Document for each
of these Plans.

Bill,  "Welcome to Duck Head".  We all look  forward to working with you and are
ready to get started.

Best Regards.

                                     Sincerely,


                                     /s/ Charles H. Mason
                                     Charles H. Mason
                                     Director of Human Resources

Cc:      Robert D. Rockey
# C_2013101EN.01000202.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/2

---

Order of the Court of 13 September 2012 — Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission

(Case C-495/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality - Manifestly incorrect interpretation - Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 101/03

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Total SA, Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, avocats)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Gencarelli, P. Van Nuffel and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 July 2011 in Case T-190/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission by which that Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Infringement of the principles of conferred powers and of proportionality — Manifestly incorrect interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principles of equity and of the equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons

Total and Elf Aquitaine

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

1

---
#### §§ 31.100-31.103 [Reserved]
§ 385.1903 Notice in rulemaking proceedings (Rule 1903). Before the adoption of rule of general applicability or the commencement of hearing on such a proposed rulemaking, the Commission will cause general notice to be given by publication in the Federal Register, such notice to be published therein not less than 15 days prior to the date fixed for the consideration of the adoption of a proposed rule or rules or for the commencement of the hearing, if any, on the proposed rulemaking, except where a shorter period is reasonable and good cause exists therefor; *Provided however,* That: ( a ) When the Commission, for good cause, finds it impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest to give such notice, it may proceed with the adoption of rules without notice by incorporating therein a finding to such effect and a concise statement of the reasons therefor;
( b ) Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, the Commission may issue at any time rules of organization, procedure or practice, or interpretative rules, or statements of policy, without notice or public proceedings; and
( c ) This section is not to be construed as applicable to the extent that there may be involved any military, naval, or foreign affairs function of the United States, or any matter relating to the Commission's management or personnel, or to United States property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.
# C_2013156EN.01001102.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 April 2013 — Mindo Srl v European Commission

(Case C-652/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Payment of the fine by the jointly and severally liable debtor - Interest in bringing proceedings - Burden of proof)

2013/C 156/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Mindo Srl (represented by: G. Mastrantonio, C. Osti and A. Prastaro, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and L. Malferrari, Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi and R. Nazzini, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06 Mindo v Commission, whereby the General Court held that there was no need to adjudicate on an action for annulment in part of Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) concerning a cartel designed to fix prices paid to producers and other intermediaries and to share suppliers in the Italian raw tobacco market, and annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Appellant involved in an insolvency procedure in the course of the proceedings — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings

Mindo

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06 Mindo v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06 Mindo v Commission;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

1

---
##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



F INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




---



##### 








---



##### 



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




---



##### 



INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




---



##### 



REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




---



##### 



OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
  over




---



##### 



Independent Auditors Report




---



##### 








---



##### 



Government Auditing Standards, Government Auditing Standards




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT
 
  Government Auditing Standards Audit Program
  Government Auditing Standards, Government Auditing Standards




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



-




---



##### 



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT




---



##### 



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT
 
   ;




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



#####
### **CHAPTER 85—MARINE TURTLE CONSERVATION**

Sec.
6601.
Findings and purposes.
6602.
Definitions.
6603.
Conservation assistance.
6604.
Marine Turtle Conservation Fund.
6605.
Advisory group.
6606.
Authorization of appropriations.
6607.
Report to Congress.
HomeLatest FilingsPrevious Page

    - SEC Home  »
    - Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System  »
    - Company Search  »
    - Current Page

30 HUDSON YARDSNEW YORK NY 10001         

30 HUDSON YARDSNEW YORK NY 10001         2127508300

KKR Real Estate Select Trust Inc. CIK#: 0001803958 (see all company filings)
State location: NY | State of Inc.: **MD** | Fiscal Year End: 1231formerly: KKR KREST Fund Inc. (filings through 2020-02-19)Get **insider transactions** for this **issuer**.File Number: **812-15181**

||
||
#### § 807.4 Effective date.

This part shall be effective on January 1, 2007.
[822 NYS2d 42]

#### In the Matter of Darnay Hoffman, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

September 28, 2006

*2APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *{Jun Hwa Lee*of counsel), for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Darnay Hoffman was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on August 7, 1995. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) seeks an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3 publicly censuring respondent predicated upon similar discipline issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the Eleventh Circuit).

Respondent represented a party in an appeal before the Eleventh Circuit. Respondent requested and was granted oral argument of the appeal. Despite being given notice of the date of oral argument, respondent failed to appear. The Eleventh Circuit subsequently instituted disciplinary proceedings against respondent based upon his failure to appear, alleging that respondent failed both to provide adequate representation to his client and adhere to the rules of practice of the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit issued an order finding that respondent had committed professional misconduct and publicly censuring him.

Respondent was provided with notice of this proceeding yet has submitted no response to the Committee’s motion.

In a proceeding seeking reciprocal discipline pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3, respondent is precluded from raising any defen*3ses except: (1) lack of notice constituting a deprivation of due process; (2) an infirmity of the proof presented to the foreign jurisdiction; or (3) that the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in this state (see *Matter of Power,*3 AD3d 21, 23 [2003]).

Here, respondent was provided with ample notice of the disciplinary action and an opportunity to answer the charges of misconduct asserted against him. The findings of misconduct were based on respondent’s testimony and documentary evidence, and there was no infirmity of proof. Finally, respondent’s conduct would constitute misconduct in this state *(see*Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5] [lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice]; DR 7-106 [a] [lawyer shall not disregard standing rule of a tribunal] [22 NYCRR 1200.3, 1200.37).

Accordingly, the petition should be granted and respondent publicly censured.

Saxe, J.P, Marlow, Gonzalez, Catterson and McGuire, JJ., concur.

Respondent publicly censured.