alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 3 to the RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. 2001 Stock Incentive Plan.



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO THE 
 RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD. 
 2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment No. 3 (the “Amendment”) to the RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. 2001 Stock
Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective June 1, 2002, and subsequently amended (the “Plan”), is made effective as of this 18th day of February 2009. 
 WHEREAS, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) maintains the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, the Compensation and Corporate Governance Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the
“Committee”) has the authority to amend the Plan and believes it to be in the best interests of the Company to do so. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. By deleting the second paragraph of Section 11 in its entirety and replacing it
with the following: 
 In the event of a Change in Control, notwithstanding any vesting schedule provided for hereunder or in any Award
agreement and unless otherwise agreed in a written document executed by both a Holder and the Company that specifically refers to this Section 11, all outstanding Awards shall automatically vest. In addition, unless otherwise agreed in a
written document executed by both a Holder and the Company that specifically refers to this Section 11, in the event of a Change in Control, all Options that are outstanding on the date of such Change in Control shall be deemed exercised, and
in exchange for outstanding Options, Participants shall be paid a cash amount based on the difference between (1) the price per share paid for the Stock in connection with such Change in Control, and (2) the exercise price per share.

 Except as modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain valid and in full force and effect.

 *            *            * 
 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly
authorized officer of the Company, has executed this instrument as of the 18th day of February 2009, on behalf of the Committee. 
  

			
	RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD.
		
	By:	 	 /s/    Stephen H. Weinstein

	Name:	 	Stephen H. Weinstein
	Title:	 	General Counsel and Corporate Secretary


  

 - 2 -
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




2009 Executive Officer Salaries




     As disclosed in the Form 8-K (No. 001-33435) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 12, 2009, as part of Cavium Networks, Inc.’s (the “Company”) overall cost reduction
efforts in response to current global economic conditions, on January 8, 2009, the Company’s
Compensation Committee approved management-recommended reductions in the base salaries of the
Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Vice President of Finance and Administration and
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of IC Engineering, Vice President and General Manager of
Networking and Communications Division, and Vice President and General Manager of Broadband Consumer
Division, effective January 1, 2009. Consequently, the salaries for the Company’s executive
officers in 2009, as compared to 2008, are as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	% of Salary
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Reduction
	 	 	 	 	2008 Salary	 	2009 Salary	 	from April
	 	 	 	 	(effective April 1,	 	(effective January	 	2008 to
	Name	 	Title	 	2008)	 	1, 2009)	 	January 2009(1)
	Syed B. Ali

	 	President and Chief

Executive Officer
	 	$	295,000	 	 	$	147,000	 	 	 	50	%
	Arthur D. Chadwick

	 	Vice President of

Finance and

Administration, Chief

Financial Officer and

Secretary
	 	$	240,000	 	 	$	180,000	 	 	 	25	%
	Anil K. Jain

	 	Corporate Vice

President, IC

Engineering
	 	$	240,000	 	 	$	180,000	 	 	 	25	%
	Rajiv Khemani

	 	Vice President and

General Manager of

Networking and

Communications

Division
	 	$	275,000	 	 	$	206,250	 	 	 	25	%
	Sandeep Vij

	 	Vice President and

General Manager of

Broadband and

Consumer Division
	 	$	274,992	 	 	$	206,244	 	 	 	25	%








 




			
	(1)	 	An ending date for such salary reductions has not yet been set, but a reinstatement of the
prior salaries will be reviewed on a quarterly basis by the Compensation Committee.
**PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT**

**OAK TERRACE ACTIVE RETIREMENT CENTER**

 

This **PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT**(the “Agreement”) is dated as of July 16th, 2006 (the “Start Date”) between OAK TERRACE JOINT VENTURE, L.P., a Kansas limited partnership (“Owner”), and GRACE MANAGEMENT, INC., a Texas corporation (“Manager”). 

 

Owner owns the independent living facility commonly known as Oak Terrace Active Retirement Center, located at 1700 W. Washington Street, Springfield, Illinois 62702 (the “Property”). Owner desires to engage Manager, and Manager desires to accept such engagement, to manage, lease, operate, and maintain the Property on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.

 

THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

 

**ARTICLE 1. COMMENCEMENT AND TERM**

 

1.1       Commencement and Term. Manager’s duties and responsibilities under this Agreement shall begin on the date hereof (the “Start Date”) and shall terminate on the earlier of (i) the conveyance of the Property or any portion thereof, as to such conveyed portion thereof only, or (ii) termination as provided in Article 10.

 

**ARTICLE 2. MANAGER’S RESPONSIBILITIES**

 

2.1       Management. Manager shall manage, operate and maintain the Property in an efficient and economic manner and shall arrange the performance of everything reasonably necessary to accomplish the foregoing, subject to the budgets, policies and limitations provided to Manager in writing by Owner from time to time. Manager shall keep the Property clean and in good repair, shall promptly order and supervise the completion of such repairs as may be required and shall generally do and perform, or cause to be done or performed, all things necessary or desirable to ensure the proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of the Property. Manager shall perform all services in a diligent and professional manner. Additionally, Manager shall upon Owner’s request cooperate with any proposed purchaser of the Property, any proposed lender evaluatingthe Property as collateral or any broker named by Owner in connection with a sale or financing of the Property. Manager is hereby authorized to take any action with respect to the Property which Manager believes in good faith is necessary for Manager to comply with all laws, rules and regulations applicable to Manager, as a licensed real estate broker or otherwise, and, when possible, Manager agrees to provide advance notice to and consult with Owner about any such action that has not been previously authorized. Manager shall exercise reasonable efforts to comply with all directions or instructions from Owner pertaining to the Property.

 

----
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 2000-2
$ 318,684,000.00 Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 2002




           PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
              DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %

          ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-2002   7,160,171   1,066,383     171,493    1.13%    8,260,095    4.54%
 Feb-2002   7,801,512   1,025,809     430,552    2.97%    6,826,666    3.92%
 Mar-2002   7,042,212     981,600     450,327    3.24%    6,086,816    3.65%
 Apr-2002   7,479,615     941,694     388,709    2.94%    5,974,793    3.76%
 May-2002   7,080,762     899,151     438,615    3.48%    5,196,088    3.43%
 Jun-2002   7,163,720     858,731     325,341    2.71%    5,363,529    3.73%
 Jul-2002   6,212,598     817,838     431,791    3.77%    4,811,430    3.50%
 Aug-2002   6,470,435     782,375     352,350    3.23%    4,813,059    3.68%
 Sep-2002   6,542,627     745,439     456,418    4.42%    5,064,859    4.09%
 Oct-2002   5,833,443     708,092     358,571    3.65%    4,565,584    3.87%
 Nov-2002   5,788,070     674,793     360,567    3.87%    5,068,626    4.53%
 Dec-2002   5,540,419     641,752     395,645    4.48%    5,293,554    4.99%

          ____________ ___________ ___________
  Totals   80,115,584  10,143,658   4,560,377

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.
#### Mark A. Welch, Respondent, v Penske Truck Leasing Corp. et al., Appellants.

[815 NYS2d 657]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the *784defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered October 18, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although we affirm the order of the Supreme Court, we do so on different grounds than those relied upon by that court. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain 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 report of the defendants’ examining physician indicated that magnetic resonance imaging of the plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar spine showed a herniation at L5-S1 and bulging discs from C4-5 through C6-7. Notably, the report of the defendants’ examining physician specified the degrees of range of motion in the plaintiff’s cervical and lumbar spine without comparing those findings to the normal range of motion *(see Browdame v Candura,*25 AD3d 747 [2006]; *Baudilio v Pam Car & Truck Rental, Inc.,*23 AD3d 420 [2005]; *Aronov v Leybovich,*3 AD3d 511, 512 [2004]). Since the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers need not be considered *(see Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 1688

JEAN BWEJERI; GODEBERTHE WAKANA; ARISTIDE RUTANGINGANJI;

SYLVIA MAIRA HAYINKA; M.J.B.

,

Petitioners

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : February 19, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

David Goren, GOREN & BARRETO, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners.

Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Nancy E . Friedman, Senior Litigation

Counsel, Sharon M. Clay, T rial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Jean Bwejeri, a native of Burundi and a citizen of Belgium, and his family

members included in his applications for relief , petition for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Bwejeri’s motion to reconsider. We

have reviewed the administrative record and conclud e that the Board did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a), (b)(1) (2018). Accordingly,

we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Bwejeri

(B.I.A. May 22, 2018). We dispense with or al argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

WAYNE WILLIAM TUCKER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-187-TKW-MJF

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC,

et al.,

Defendants.

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This section 1983 action is before the court on referral from the clerk of the 

court. On January 15, 2021, Defendant Gaskins filed a Suggestion of Death noting 

that Plaintiff was deceased. (Doc. 55). On January 19, 2021, this court ordered 

Gaskins to file a notice certifying the date she served the Suggestion of Death on 

Plaintiff’s successor or representative. (Doc. 56). The order further provided that a 

motion for substitution of Plaintiff must be filed within 90 days after service of the 

Suggestion of Death. (Id.) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1)). 

Plaintiff’s daughter Jessica Tucker was served personally with the Suggestion 

of Death on January 22, 2021, and Plaintiff’s son Asa Tucker was served personally 

with the Suggestion of Death on January 23, 2021. (Doc. 58 and Attach.). No motion 

for substitution has been filed.

Case 5:20-cv-00187-TKW-MJF Document 64 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may 

order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be 

made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative. If 

the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement 

noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be 

dismissed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1). Over 90 days have passed since service of the Suggestion 

of Death, and no motion for substitution has been filed.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that:

1. This action be DISMISSED under Rule 25(a)(1) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

2. The clerk be directed to close this case file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 26th day of April, 2021.

/s/ Michael J. Frank 

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must 

be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and 

Recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the 

electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not 

control. An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on 

all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate 

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the 

district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 5:20-cv-00187-TKW-MJF Document 64 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 3430.602 Definitions. The definitions applicable to the program under this subpart include: *Beginning farmer or rancher* means a person that has not operated a farm or ranch or has operated a farm or ranch for not more than 10 years, and meets such other criteria as the Secretary may establish.
*Clearinghouse* means an online repository that will make available to beginning farmers or ranchers education curricula and training materials and programs, and which may include online courses for direct use by beginning farmers or ranchers.
*Limited resource beginning farmers or ranchers* means beginning farmers or ranchers who have: ( 1 ) direct or indirect gross farm sales not more than the sales amount established by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in each of the previous two years (in current dollars, adjusted for inflation each year, based on the October 2002 Prices Paid by Farmer Index compiled and updated annually by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and
( 2 ) a total household income at or below the National Poverty Level for a family of four or less than 50 percent of county median household income in each of the previous 2 years as determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), using the Census Poverty Data.
*Outcome-based reporting* means reporting that includes an outcome statement with performance targets, necessary milestones, beneficiary engagement, key individuals, and verification.
[74 FR 45970, Sept. 4, 2009, as amended at 76 FR 35323, June 17, 2011]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ABILITY OPTIONS, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

CRYSTAL MUNOZ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00196

- CV

Appeal from

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2017DCV1736 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ability Options, LLC is attempting to appeal from a final judgment entered by the trial

court in favor of Crystal Munoz. Finding that Appellant did not timely file its notice of appeal,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The trial court signed the final judgment on August 15, 2018. Appellant did not file any

post

- judgment motions or requests which would have operated to extend the deadline for filing

notice of appeal. Thus , Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be file d no later than September

14, 2018. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1. Appellant did not file its notice of appeal until November 13,

2018. On that date, t he Clerk of the Court sent A ppellant a letter informing it that the notice of

appeal had not been timely filed and the Court lacked jurisdiction of the appeal. The letter notified

Appellant that the Court intended to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless any party

filed a response within ten days establishing grounds for the appeal to be continued. The Court- 2

-

granted Appellant’s request for an extension of time in which to file its response to the

jurisdictional inquiry , but Appellant did not file any response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(a).

December 19, 2018

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Petition of

-- ) ) Rohulhameed Construction Company ) ) Under ContractNo. W91B4M-09-C-7104 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE PETITIONER:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61034-978

Walt Pennington, Esq.

Pennington Law Firm San Diego, CA Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney MAJ Deirdre K. Baker, JA

Trial Attorney ORDERPURSUANT TO RULE l(a){S) DIRECTING CONTRACTING OFFICERTO ISSUE DECISION The contractor filed, under Rule l(a)(S), a request for an order directing the contracting officerto render a decision on a claim, dated 25 October 2016, for $135,720, which was submitted to the cognizant contracting officervia email on 1December 2016. The governmenthas advised that a final decision will be issued by 21 March 2017. We deem this date reasonable. Accordingly, the Board hereby directs the contracting officer to issue a decision on the contractor's claim by 21 March 2017. This Order completes all necessary action by the Board. Ifthe contracting officer fails to comply with this Order, such failure will be deemed a decision by the contracting officer denying the claim, and the contractor may appeal to this Board or sue in the United States Court ofFederal Claims pursuantto the ContractDisputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7103(f)(5), or 7104, as appropriate. Dated: 27 February 2017

(Signatures continued) Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I concur

OWEN C. WILSON Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe OrderPursuantto Rule l(a)(5) ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61034-978, Petition ofRohulhameed Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2005-2131.

#### State ex rel. Holland v. Gen. Motors Corp.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-49, 2005-Ohio-5649. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:00cr64-RH

DWAYNE SOLOMON,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

For the reasons set forth on the record of the January 13, 2006, hearing in

this matter, defendant Dwayne Solomon is found guilty of the charge of violating

his conditions of supervised release, as alleged in the petition filed October 21,

2005 (document 64), by failing to submit a truthful and complete written monthly

report within the first five (5) days of each month (violation 4), and by failing to

follow the instructions of the probation officer (violation 5). Defendant is found

not guilty of violations 1, 2, and 3. The terms of supervised release are modified to

include the following additional condition:

The defendant shall serve a period of two (2) months home detention,

with electronic monitoring, to begin at a time designated by the

probation officer. While on home detention, the defendant shall be in

Case 4:00-cr-00064-RH-WCS Document 74 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:00cr64-RH

the defendant’s place of residence except for absences approved by

the probation officer for gainful employment, community service,

religious services, medical care, education or training, or other such

purposes as may be authorized by the probation officer. 

In light of defendant’s restitution obligation, defendant is not ordered to bear the

cost of electronic monitoring.

All other conditions of supervised release remain the same.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2006.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:00-cr-00064-RH-WCS Document 74 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 2, 2021

t0526

Order 

Clerk

June 2, 2021

162219

CHARLES LESTER FRY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 162219

COA: 354184

Isabella CC: 19-015461-NI

JOSHUA THOMAS JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2020 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
§ 3201.121 Animal habitat care products. ( a ) *Definition.* Animal habitat care products are products that are intended to improve the quality of animal habitats such as cleaning supplies, sanitizers, feeders, and products that control, mask, or suppress pet odors. This category excludes animal bedding or litter products and animal cleaning products.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The Federal preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 22 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than July 6, 2020, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased animal habitat care products. By that date, Federal agencies responsible for drafting or reviewing specifications for products to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased animal habitat care products.
[84 FR 32021, July 5, 2019]