alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Severance Agreement between Reliant Energy, Inc. and Robt. Harvey



 Exhibit 10.43 
  
 AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
  
 This AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT is made and effective as of the 21st day of February, 2005, by and between Reliant
Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas (the “Company”), and Robert W. Harvey (“Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS, Executive was employed by the Company as the Executive Vice President, Power Generation and Supply; and 

 
 WHEREAS, Executive will resign his employment as the Company’s
Executive Vice President, Power Generation and Supply and all of his other positions with the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates, effective as of February 21, 2005; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into that certain Severance Agreement, effective as of May
30, 2003 (the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company
considers it in the best interest of the Company to amend certain provisions of the Agreement; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Executive have entered into this amendment to the Agreement, effective as of February 21, 2005, as follows: 
  
 1. The definition of “Covered Termination” in Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following
sentence to the end thereof: 
  
 “Furthermore,
notwithstanding the foregoing, a Covered Termination shall also include Executive’s voluntary resignation of employment effective February 21, 2005, pursuant to his letter of resignation dated that same date.” 
  
 2. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Amendment to the Agreement
to the contrary, and without duplication of benefits, Executive shall be entitled to the benefits as provided under the terms of the Agreement, and all terms, conditions, and restrictions set forth in the Agreement, including, but not limited to,
the Waiver and Release requirement, shall continue in full force and effect and shall apply with respect to this Amendment. 
  
 3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constitute
one and the same instrument. 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed as of
the date set forth below. 
  

			
	RELIANT ENERGY, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/    JOEL V. STAFF        
	 	 	Joel V. Staff
	 	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	
	 Signature Date: February 21, 2005

	
	EXECUTIVE
		
	By:	 	/s/    ROBERT W.
HARVEY        
	 	 	Robert W. Harvey
	
	 Signature Date: February 21, 2005



  

 2
#### Raymond Morse, Appellant, v. Naiztat Iron Works, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings 'County, entered October 24, 1967 and November 16, 1967 respectively, as affect defendants other than 3720 Realty iCorp. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from. No opinion. Appeal from order, as limited, dismissed. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made only on the -trial minutes. In any event, the contentions raised on the motion were considered on the appeal from the judgment. A single bill of costs is allowed to respondents Naiztat Iron Works, Inc., and Neckman .Construction iCorp., jointly. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, .Rabin, Hopkins and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHAWNE D. BROGDON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5:20cv067-RV/MAF

MARK INCH, Secretary,

Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of 

the U.S. Magistrate Judge dated November 2, 2020 (ECF No. 20), to dismiss

the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF 

No. 1). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections 

pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The petitioner has filed an objection (ECF

No. 21), which I have reviewed de novo. Having considered the Report and 

Recommendation, and the objection thereto, I have determined the Report 

and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order. 

Case 5:20-cv-00067-RV-MAF Document 22 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 2
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The petition for writ of 

habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. The Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Expedited Ruling (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. Any 

certificate of appealability is DENIED and leave to appeal in forma 

pauperis is also DENIED.” 

3. The Clerk shall close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED on this 30th day of November, 2020.

s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00067-RV-MAF Document 22 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 2
98-1204.

#### State v. Strodes.

Clark App. No. 2475. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due August 14, 1998, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2027

TIFFANY LAGENIA NOELS, on her own behalf, and as general guardian of 

minor child, J.B.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLP; SHAPIRO & BROWN LLP; DEUTSCHE 

BANK NATIONAL TRUST; BROCK & SCOTT, LLC, a/k/a Brock & Scott, 

PLLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03218-GJH)

Submitted: January 31, 2019 Decided: February 21, 2019

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tiffany Lagenia Noels, Appellant Pro Se. Walter John Buzzetta, Thomas Francis 

Lucchesi, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP, Washington, D.C.; 

Thomas John Gartner, SHAPIRO & BROWN, LLP, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tiffany Lagenia Noels appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ 

motions to strike her amended complaint and to dismiss her original complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Noels v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLP, No. 8:17-cv-03218-GJH 

(D. Md. filed July 30, 2018 & entered July 31, 2018). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 4.1


 





 






    	



    	 



    







The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription
on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:


 





	TEN COM	-as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT --	 	CUSTODIAN	 
	 	 	 		(CUSTODIAN)		(MINOR)
	TEN ENT	-as tenants by the entireties	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
	 	 	 			 	 
	JT TEN	-as joint tenants with right of survivorship

        and not as tenants in common
	 	 	(State)






 


Additional abbreviations
may also be used though not in the above list. 




 


For
value received,___________________________________________hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto


 


PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY


OR OTHER IDENTIFYING
NUMBER


 


	 






 




(PLEASE
PRINT OR TYPE WRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)


 




 




 



___________________________________________________________________________________________
Shares
 of the common stock represented by this Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints


 


___________________________________________________________________________________________
Attorney





to
transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


 







	Dated:	 	 	 	 
		 	 	NOTICE:	THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE
OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN ANY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.



 


SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED


 


	 	 	 	 	 
	NOTICE	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION. (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS,
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND CREDIT UNIONS) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM PURSUANT TO
S.E.C RULE I 7AD-15
Order entered February 12, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01258-CV

LINDA HENDERSON AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 1225 KENSINGTON 

DR. DESOTO, TX 75115, Appellant

V.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-04797-D

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated January 7, 2020, we 

informed appellant the court reporter notified us that the reporter’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the 

reporter’s record had been requested and that appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the record or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the 

appeal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not 

provided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the 
status of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a 

reporter’s record. 

Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DREW JAMES MCLAUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv49-TKW-MJF 

MAJOR SWARTZ,

Defendant.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 5). No objections were filed. Having reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate judge’s 

determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure comply 

with court orders and failure to pay the filing fee. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00049-TKW-MJF Document 6 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 1
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13183

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20914-WPD-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 versus

CHUCK WAYNE BOYD, 

a.k.a. Dred, 

a.k.a. Jamaican, 

a.k.a. Bumble Bee, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 26, 2018)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-13183 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Chuck Wayne Boyd appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his second 

motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district 

court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, and the district 

court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Boyd bases his appeal on 

Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that he 

was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, that he improperly 

received a criminal history category of VI, and that his 300-month sentence created 

a sentencing disparity and therefore violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Pleadings drafted pro se “are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings 

drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. 

United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). However, a pro 

se appellant still abandons an issue when he fails to offer argument on the issue in 

his brief. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Boyd’s pro se brief does not mention the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion or 

the denial of his motion for reconsideration and thus he has abandoned any 

arguments as to those aspects of his appeal. Id. As to Boyd’s motion to reduce his 

sentence, the district court did not err by denying his motion because we have 

previously affirmed the district court’s first denial of his motion to reduce his 

sentence based on Amendment 782 and he has not demonstrated any exceptions to 

the law-of-the-case doctrine. See United States v. Boyd, No. 15-13154 (11th Cir. 

Case: 17-13183 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

December 3, 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished order); United States v. Tamayo, 80 

F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that under the law-of-the-case 

doctrine “[a]n appellate decision binds all subsequent proceedings in the same case 

not only as to explicit rulings, but also as to issues decided necessarily by 

implication on the prior appeal”). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-13183 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHELIA RENE VANN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv42-TKW-EMT

ANDREW SAUL,

Defendant.

_____________________/

ORDER

Upon due consideration of the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 28), it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment (Doc. 27), is 

GRANTED.

2. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff stating: “The 

Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. §405(g), and this case is REMANDED for further administrative 

proceedings.”

3. The Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00042-TKW-EMT Document 29 Filed 02/02/21 Page 1 of 1
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 12029 and # 12030]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of  North Carolina (FEMA-1871-DR), dated 02/02/2010. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         12/18/2009 through 12/25/2009.
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         02/02/2010. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/05/2010. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/02/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to:  U.S. Small Business Administration,  Processing and Disbursement Center,  14925 Kingsport Road,  Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance,  U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on  02/02/2010, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Haywood, Jackson,  Madison, Mcdowell, Mitchell, Watauga, Yancey. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent*For Physical Damage*Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000*For Economic Injury*Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12029B and for economic injury is 12030B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2010-2832 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
July 2014 For Conference/Training Purposes Only’ 

# Using TRI to Identify and Report 

# Sustainable Practices

Daniel Teitelbaum Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program Office of Environmental Information

### • TRI compiles data submitted by industry on the releases and management of toxic chemicals from certain facilities. • TRI can tell you about: Releases Waste

transfers Recycling Pollution prevention 

### • TRI includes data about approximately 20,000 facilities across the country and covers more than 675 toxic chemicals. 

# Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Basics

21. Facility must be in a TRI - covered industry sector or category , including: 2. Facility must have the equivalent of at least 10 full -time employees. 3. Facility must manufacture, process or use more than a certain amount of a TRI - listed toxic chemical per year. Manufacturing Coal/Oil Electricity G eneration Certain Mining Facilities Hazardous Waste Management Federal Facilities 

# Which Facilities Must Report to TRI?

3

### Waste Management Hierarchy P2 Info Reported to TRI • Source reduction activities (codes) • Optional P2 information (free-text) • Waste management quantities:
– Recycling
– Energy Recovery
– Treatment
– Disposal and Other Releases 4 

# TRI’s Pollution Prevention (P2) Data

# Examples of Reported P2 Info • W61 Changed to aqueous cleaners (from solvents)

– Over several years, a metal heat treating facility first reduced TCE waste by maximizing the load size on their degreasers to improve efficiency, and later eliminated TCE by switching to aqueous degreasing. 

### • W41 Increased purity of raw materials

– A metal plating and coating company switched from single -stabilized TCE to double -stabilized TCE, which increased the efficiency of their degreaser and reduced waste . 

### • W15 Introduced an in - line product quality monitoring or other process analysis system

– A finishing company implemented additional testing for alkalinity and used additives to prolong bath life, resulting in fewer tank change -outs and a 19% decrease in TCE usage. 5

# P2 Reporting Trends

6

5,175 5,820 7,218

1,769 3,145 7,166

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
2010 2011 2012 # of Forms 

### P2 Reporting Summary, 2010- 12

Forms with P2 Activity Codes Forms with Optional P2 Descriptions 7% 7% 8% 10% 4% 10% 2% 

### • Facilities have reported more P2 information since EPA increased emphasis on this part of the TRI reporting form7 

### Top Parent Companies Based on Newly Implemented Source Reduction Activities, 2012 

# P2 in TRI’s National Analysis8 

# www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/tri/p2.html 

# TRI’s P2 Search Tool

# P2 Activity List for an Industry/Chemical

# Pollution Prevention Reporting Tipsheet

10 

## www2.epa.gov/toxics- release - inventory-tri - program/tri p2 - reporting -tip -sheet

# • Daniel Teitelbaum, TRI P2 Staff Lead

– Teitelbaum.daniel@epa.gov 

# • EPA Website

– www.epa.gov/tri/p2 (TRI P2 webpage)
– www.epa.gov/p2 (EPA’s P2 Program)
– www.epa.gov/tri (TRI homepage) 11 

# For More Information
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129047 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, MARION JENKINS TRUST, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 129047 COA: 252796 Chippewa CC: 03-006950-CH ELSIE SMITH, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 26, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Cardiac Science Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Hinson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.

                                                   /s/ JOHN R. HINSON
                                               ---------------------------------
                                              John R. Hinson
                                              Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 10, 2006