alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to the Alcoa Stock Acquisition Plan



 Exhibit 10.L(4) 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 ALCOA STOCK ACQUISITION PLAN 
 Pursuant to Section 7.1, which provides that the Plan may be amended, the Plan is revised as follows: 
  

	1.	The following new Article IX – Claims and Appeals is added: 

 ARTICLE IX – CLAIMS AND APPEALS 
 9.1 If a
claim by a Participant or Beneficiary is denied, in whole or in part, the Participant or Beneficiary, or their representative will receive written notice from the plan administrator. This notice will include the reasons for denial, the specific plan
provision involved, an explanation of how claims are reviewed, the procedure for requesting a review of the denied claim, and a description of the information that must be submitted with the appeal. The Participant or Beneficiary, or their
representative, may file a written appeal for review of a denied claim to the Committee. The process and the time frames for the determination claims and appeals are as follows: 
 (a) The plan administrator reviews initial claim and makes determination within 90 days of the date the claim is received. 
 (b) The plan administrator may extend the above 90-day period an additional 90 days if required due to special circumstances beyond control
of plan administrator. 
 (c) The Participant or Beneficiary, or their representative, may submit an appeal of a denied claim
within 60 days of receipt of the denial. 
 (d) The plan administrator reviews and makes a determination on the appeal within 60
days of the date the appeal was received. 
 (e) The plan administrator may extend the above 60-day period an additional 60 days
if required by special circumstances beyond the control of the plan administrator. 
 9.2 In the case where the plan
administrator requires an extension of the period to provide a determination on an initial claim or an appeal, the Plan will notify the Participant or Beneficiary, or their representative, prior to the expiration of the initial determination period.
The notification will describe the circumstances requiring the extension and the date a determination is expected to be made. If additional information is required from the Participant or Beneficiary, the determination period will be suspended until
the earlier of i) the date the information is received by the plan administrator or ii) 45 days from the date the information was requested. 
  

 1 








 9.3 Participants or Beneficiaries, or their representative, who having received an adverse
appeal determination and thereby exhausted the remedies provided under the this Plan, proceed to file suit in state or federal court, must file such suit within 180 days from the date of the adverse appeal determination notice. 
  

	2.	In all other respects, the Plan is ratified and confirmed. 

  


 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DELOISE PRICE, | 

 | 

 PLAINTIFF | 

 | 

VS. | CASE NO. 2:06-CV-721 

 | 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., | 

et al., | 

 | 

 DEFENDANTS | 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

 Comes now Defendant and moves this Honorable Court to continue the trial 

or reschedule same from its current setting of April 14, 2008 on the following 

grounds: 

1. Both counsel Dennis R. Bailey and Bethany L. Bolger are currently 

scheduled to try a products liability case in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Alabama styled “Timothy Morgan 

and Carol Morgan vs. Electrolux Home Products, et al.” before the 

Hon. Robert Propst on April 14, 2008, in Gadsden. Said case was set 

for trial by order dated December 20, 2007. 

2. The above-styled case was scheduled for trial on April 14, 2008 on 

January 29, 2008 after a mistrial. 

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 55 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

3. Counsel for Defendant has contacted counsel for the Plaintiff and 

advised them of the conflict. Counsel for Plaintiff has no objection 

and indicated they would join in the motion for continuance. 

4. Counsel for Defendant could try this case the week of April 7, 2008 or 

the week of April 21, 2008 should the Court find those dates 

acceptable to its schedule. 

 WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to continue or 

reschedule the trial from its present setting of April 14, 2008 as a result of a 

conflict with a previously-scheduled case before the Northern District of Alabama 

at that same time. 

 /s/ Dennis R. Bailey

 Dennis R. Bailey 

 Attorney for Defendant 

Of counsel: 

RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSTON & GARRETT, P.A. 

184 Commerce Street 

Post Office Box 270 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0270 

(334) 206-3234 (phone) 

(334) 481-0031 (fax) 

drb@rsjg.com (e-mail) 

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 55 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document upon 

the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States 

Mail, first class postage prepaid, on this the 30th day of January, 2007. 

 Jock M. Smith 

 Brian P. Strength 

 Valerie Rucker Russell 

 Cochran, Cherry, Givens, Smith, Lane & Taylor 

 Post Office Box 830419 

 Tuskegee, Alabama 36083 

 /s/ Dennis R. Bailey

 Of counsel 

Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 55 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 3 of 3
Subpart 2834.0 - General    **Parent topic:** PART 2834 - MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION2834.002 Policy.       The Small Business and Federal Procurement Competition Enhancement Act of 1984 allows an executive agency to establish a dollar threshold for the designation of a major system, in accordance with Public Law 98-577. Dollar thresholds for a major system under OMB Circular A-109 are designated in this section.          (a) *Major automated information system.* Within DOJ, a major automated information system is one whose life-cycle cost is in excess of $100 million.          (b) *Major real property system.*          (1)  			By purchase, when the assessed value of the property exceeds $60 million.          (2) By lease, when the annual rental charges, including basic services (*e.g.,* cleaning, guards, maintenance), exceed $1.8 million.          (3) By transfer from another agency at no cost when the assessed value of the property exceeds $12 million.          (c) *Research and development (R&D) system.* Any R&D activity expected to exceed $500,000 for the R&D phase is subject to OMB Circular A-109, unless exempted by the HCA or designee under paragraph (e) of this section.          (d) *Any other system or activity.* The HCA or designee responsible for the system may designate any system or activity as a Major System under OMB Circular A-109, *e.g.,* selected systems designed to support more than one principal organizational unit.          (e) *Exemption.* The CAO, upon recommendation by the HCA or designee responsible for the system, may determine that, because of the routine nature of the acquisition, the system (*e.g.,* an information system utilizing only off-the-shelf hardware or software) will be exempt from the OMB Circular A-109 process, even where by virtue of the life cycle costs it would otherwise be identified as “major” in response to OMB Circular A-109.2834.003 Responsibilities.       (a) The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.003(a).          (b) The CAO is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.003(c).2834.005 General requirements.2834.005-6 Full production.       The CAO is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.005-6.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.330 Stipulations.

Apart from any stipulations made during or as a result of a prehearing conference, the parties may stipulate in writing at any stage of the proceeding or orally during the hearing, any relevant fact or the contents or authenticity of any document. These stipulations may be received in evidence. The parties may also stipulate as to the procedure to be followed in the proceeding. These stipulations may, on motion of all parties, be recognized by the presiding officer to govern the conduct of the proceeding.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

68 TP 13-01296 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF SHERMAN WALKER, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

DAVID STALLONE, SUPERINTENDENT, CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.

SHERMAN WALKER, PETITIONER PRO SE.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.], entered July 15, 2013) to annul a determination finding after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Amend to Reynolds Metals Co. Benefit Restoration Plan for New Retirement Program



 Exhibit 10.TT(1) 
 AMENDMENTS TO THE 
 REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY BENEFIT RESTORATION
PLAN 
 FOR NEW RETIREMENT PROGRAM 
  

	1.	A new Article IX, Claims and Appeals is added: 

 ARTICLE IX 
 CLAIMS AND APPEALS 
 9.01 If a claim by a Participant or Surviving Spouse is denied in whole or in part, the Participant or Surviving Spouse, or
their representative will receive written notice from the plan administrator. This notice will include the reasons for denial, the specific Plan provision involved, an explanation of how claims are reviewed, the procedure for requesting a review of
the denied claim, and a description of the information that must be submitted with the appeal. The Participant or Surviving Spouse, or their representative, may file a written appeal for review of a denied claim to the Benefits Management Committee.
The process and the time frames for the determination claims and appeals are as follows: 
 (a) The plan
administrator reviews initial claim and makes determination within 90 days of the date the claim is received. 
 (b) The plan administrator may extend the above 90-day period an additional 90 days if required due to special circumstances beyond control of plan administrator. 
 (c) The Participant or Surviving Spouse, or their representative, may submit an appeal of a denied claim within 60 days of
receipt of the denial. 
 (d) The plan administrator reviews and makes a determination on the appeal within 60
days of the date the appeal was received. 
 (e) The plan administrator may extend the above 60-day period an
additional 60 days if required by special circumstances beyond the control of the plan administrator. 
 9.02 In
the case where the plan administrator requires an extension of the period to provide a determination on an initial claim or an appeal, the plan will notify the Participant or Surviving Spouse, or their representative, prior to the expiration of the
initial determination period. The notification will describe the circumstances requiring the extension and the date a determination is








 
expected to be made. If additional information is required from the Participant or Surviving Spouse, the determination period will be suspended until the earlier of i) the date the information is
received by the plan administrator or ii) 45 days from the date the information was requested. 
 9.03
Participants or Surviving Spouses, or their representative, who having received an adverse appeal determination and thereby exhausted the remedies provided under the Excess Plan, proceed to file suit in state or federal court, must file such suit
within 180 days from the date of the adverse appeal determination notice. 
  

	2.	In all other respects, the Plan is ratified and confirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION 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 on Form 10-Q of ImClone Systems Incorporated (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John H. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter R. Borzilleri, Interim Vice President,
Finance of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|                 |  |  | /s/JOHN H. JOHNSONJohn H. Johnson Chief Executive
Officer
Principal Executive Officer                
|---------------- |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|November 9, 2007 |  |  |                                                                                                      
|                 |  |  | /s/PETER R. BORZILLERIPeter R. Borzilleri Interim Vice
President, Finance
Principal Financial Officer
|November 9, 2007 |  |  |                                                                                                      

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

DENNIS BASSETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 19, 2015

v No. 320267 Oakland Circuit Court JESSIE MARIE HARDIN, LC No. 2010-112534-NI

Defendant,

and

AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: B OONSTRA , P.J., and S AWYER and O’C ONNELL , JJ.

B OONSTRA , J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the majority opinion.

I write separately to emphasize that this entire ordeal could easily have been avoided, if plaintiff’s counsel had simply complied with the court rules. Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly failed to serve defendant Affirmative Insurance Services (Affirmative) in the manner required by MCR 2.105(D). See also Bullington v Corbell , 293 Mich App 549, 558; 809 NW2d 657 (2011) (“With regard to private corpora tions, the court rules require personal service on an officer, registered agent, director, trustee, or person in charge of an office or business establishment.”). So, now, having failed to effect service properly under the cou rt rules, plaintiff is left to rely on the court rules’ own seeming lack of teeth, since they also pro vide a potential escape clause. See MCR 2.105(J) (“An action shall not be dismissed for improper se rvice of process unless the service failed to inform the de fendant of the action within the time provided in these rules for service.”).

The net result is that the parties and the courts are required to haggle over, attempt to ascertain, and ultimately to determine, whether whatever indivi dual(s) may have received the fruits of plaintiff’s improper se rvice did so in some capacity related to Affirmative, whether they were in a position at that time to effectively deem Affirmative as having received them, and whether the entirety of the circumstances make it appropriate t o conclude that the “service,”-2- while improper, nonetheless “infor m[ed] Affirmative of the acti on within the time provided in these rules for service.” Id

. What a colossal waste of time, energy, and resources for all c oncerned. I encourage counsel to take note for the future. Alternatively, perhaps ou r court rules should be given greater teeth.

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
Subpart 823.1 - Sustainable Acquisition

Policy

Parent topic: PART 823 - ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

823.103-70 Policy.

(a) For new contracts and orders above the micro-purchase threshold, contracting officers may

insert a solicitation provision to include an evaluation factor for an offeror's Sustainable Acquisition

Plan.

(b) When a solicitation includes the provision at 852.223-70, Instruction to Offerors - Sustainable

Acquisition Plan, offerors shall include a Sustainable Acquisition Plan in their technical proposal

addressing the sustainable products and services for delivery under any resulting contract.

823.103-71 Solicitation provision.

The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 852.223-70, Instruction to Offerors - Sustainable

Acquisition Plan, in solicitations above the micro-purchase threshold.
exv10w8w1








Exhibit 10.8.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

CNA SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

(As Restated Effective January 1, 2009)




        The CNA SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN, as restated by CNA Financial Corporation
effective January 1, 2009, is hereby amended as follows:




        1.        Effective on the date of execution of this Amendment, Section 3.3 is amended to read as
follows:





           “3.3 Withholding and Payroll Taxes. The Administrator shall withhold, or shall
direct the person making any payment to withhold, from payments made hereunder any taxes
required to be withheld from a Participant’s wages for the federal or any state or local
government. To the extent that benefits hereunder are subject to tax under the Federal
Insurance Contributions Act when they become payable, the payment of the Participant’s
benefit shall be accelerated to the extent necessary to pay the amount of such tax, plus any
federal, state or local income tax withholding required by reason of such acceleration
(including the income tax payable upon the amount of income tax withholding) in accordance
with Treasury Regulation §1.409A-3(j)(4)(vi), and the benefit subsequently payable to such
Participant pursuant to Section 2.5 shall be reduced by an amount equal to the benefit
payable under Section 2.5 multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the amount of
such acceleration and the denominator of which is the lump sum value of the Participant’s
benefit on the date as of which the FICA tax is paid (or, if the Administrator elects to pay
a Pre-2005 Benefit as an annuity, each annuity payment will be reduced by the actuarial
equivalent of such reduction). The Administrator may, in its discretion, direct the
Participant’s Employer to withhold, all or a portion of such taxes from any other
compensation or other amounts payable to the Participant in lieu of accelerating payment of
the Participant’s benefit; provided that the Administrator shall not allow Participants to
pay such taxes to the Employer, or otherwise provide Participants, directly or indirectly,
with an election as to whether the Participant’s benefit shall be accelerated. The
Administrator’s determination of the amount to be withheld, and the manner of satisfying the
withholding obligation shall be final and binding on all parties.”



        2.        Except as otherwise provided herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed on behalf of CNA Financial Corporation
pursuant to the authority reserved under Section 5.1 of the Plan, this 23rd day of
December, 2009.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	By:   /s/ Thomas Pontarelli               
	 

	 	Thomas Pontarelli, Executive Vice President &
	 

	 	Chief Administration Officer, Continental Casualty
	 

	 	Company
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

RUSSELL E. GARNER, ) 

) 

PLAINTIFF, ) 

) 

VS. ) CIVIL CASE NO.: 01:06cv781-MHT 

) 

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY, ) 

) 

DEFENDANT. )

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 

You are hereby notified that the plaintiff will take the testimony by deposition of Dr. 

Michelle Turnley upon oral examination for the purpose of discovery or for use as evidence 

in this cause, or for both purposes, in accordance with the Alabama Rules of Civil 

Procedure, at the office of Dr. Michelle Turnley, Orthopedic Sports Medicine Clinic of 

Alabama, 200 Montgomery Highway, Suite 200, Birmingham, Alabama, 35216, on 

March 8, 2007, beginning at 4:00 p.m., before a court reporter, notary public, or some 

other person authorized by law to administer oaths and take depositions. The examination 

will continue from day to day until completed. You are invited to attend and cross-examine. 

_______________________________ 

David W. Rousseau (ROU007) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

211 W. Adams Street 

Dothan, Alabama 36303 

(334) 699-9000 

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 16 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the above and foregoing by placing a 

copy of the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and properly addressed this the ___ 

day of ____________, 2007, upon the following. 

Jeff Hunter 

Nix, Holtsford, Gilliland, 

Higgins & Hitson, P.C. 

P.O. Box 4128 

Montgomery, AL 36103 

American Court Reporting 

Attn: Melissa Lee 

P.O. Box 12765 

Birmingham, AL 35202 

___________________________ 

David W. Rousseau 

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 16 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

41 North 73 West, Inc., dba AVITAT 

Westchester and Jet Systems 

COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT 

The County of Westchester, New York 

RESPONDENT/APPELLEE 

Docket No. 16-07-13 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally- '''' ^ 

Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFRPart 16. Pursuant to 14 CFRPart 1 ^ 

subpart B, the date by which the Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is Q 

hereby extended to April 13, 2009. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination 

in this case. 

M^A. 

Catherine M. Lan. 

Acting Associati 

for Airports 

mistrator 

. J^^. 0"^ 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on " ^ I placed in the United 

States mail (first class, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing document addressed to: 

Peter J. Kirsch 

David I. Spector 

KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL, LLP 

1675 Broadway, Suite 2300 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Richard Cashman 

James Wenzel 

County of Westchester 

18 Martine Avenue, Room 600 

White Plains, New York, 10601 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

- 7 -'•'"7 

--' 

/-^ ^ ^ 3 £ ^ 

>Jikita Di Bright 

Airport Compliance and Field Operations
#### MANDEL, Respondent, v. HOPKINS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Adolf Mandel against David Hopkins and another, as executors, etc.

W. S. Bennet, of New York City, for appellants.

M. S. Harris, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 144 N. Y. Supp. 1072; 148 N. Y. Supp. 1129.