alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10wiw4







Exhibit 10.I.4




AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE

EL PASO CORPORATION

KEY EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PROTECTION PLAN




     Pursuant to Section 8.1 of the El Paso Corporation Key Executive Severance Protection Plan,
Amended and Restated effective as of August 1, 1998, as amended (the “Plan”), Appendix II of the
Plan is hereby amended, as attached, to remove certain Executive Employees who are no longer active
employees eligible to participate in the Plan and add an Executive Employee whose participation in
the Plan has been approved by the Board through the Compensation Committee effective as of
September 2, 2003.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be duly executed on the 2nd day
of September, 2003.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EL PASO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	     /s/ Gary J. Konnie
 	 
	 	 	Gary J. Konnie 	 
	 	 	Its Senior Vice President


Human Resources 	 
	 



Attest:




	 	 	 
	     /s/ David L. Siddall
 

Corporate Secretary

	 	 






 









 






APPENDIX II




EL PASO CORPORATION

KEY EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PROTECTION PLAN




     The following individuals are deemed to be participants in the Plan as of each individual’s
effective date of participation (“Effective Date of Participation”).



	 	 	 
	Employee	 	Effective Date of Participation
	Robert W. Baker

	 	November 7, 2002
	Randy L. Bartley

	 	November 7, 2002
	Stephen C. Beasley

	 	November 7, 2002
	James J. Cleary

	 	November 7, 2002
	Daniel F. Collins

	 	November 7, 2002
	Bruce Connery

	 	November 7, 2002
	John T. Elzner

	 	November 7, 2002
	Rodney D. Erskine

	 	December 4, 2001
	Douglas L. Foshee

	 	September 2, 2003
	Greg G. Gruber

	 	November 7, 2002
	John L. Harrison

	 	November 7, 2002
	Peggy A. Heeg

	 	December 4, 2001
	John J. Hopper

	 	November 7, 2002
	Harvey R. Klingensmith

	 	November 7, 2002
	Gary J. Konnie

	 	November 7, 2002
	Charles W. Latch

	 	November 7, 2002
	Daniel B. Martin

	 	November 7, 2002
	Graciela E. Martinez

	 	November 7, 2002
	Kevin J. McMichael

	 	November 7, 2002
	D. Dwight Scott

	 	October 1, 2002
	David L. Siddall

	 	November 7, 2002
	Judy A. Vandagriff

	 	November 7, 2002
	Gene W. Waguespack

	 	November 7, 2002
	James C. Yardley

	 	November 7, 2002
	David E. Zerhusen

	 	October 1, 2002





Acknowledged and Accepted the 2nd day of September, 2003.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	     /s/ Gary J. Konnie
 

Gary J. Konnie
	 	 
	 

	 	Its Senior Vice President	 	 
	 

	 	Human Resources
exv10w72









Exhibit 10.72




SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION

Effective October 13, 2008




Annual Retainers





	 	•	 	Non-Employee Executive Chairman: Approximately $400,000 in restricted stock units
(through 12/31/08)
	 
	 	•	 	Non-Employee Directors other than the Executive Chairman: $45,000
	 
	 	•	 	Audit Committee Members: $10,000
	 
	 	•	 	Nominating & Governance Committee Members: $5,000
	 
	 	•	 	Compensation Committee Members: $5,000
	 
	 	•	 	Risk and Finance Oversight Committee Members: $5,000
	 
	 	•	 	Special Committee Chairman approximately: $25,000





Fees for Meeting Attendance





	 	•	 	Board Meetings: $2,000 per meeting
	 
	 	•	 	Committee Meetings: $2,000 per meeting




Except for the Non-Employee Executive Chairman’s retainer and the Special Committee Chairman’s
retainer, directors may choose to be paid their annual retainers and meeting fees in one or both of
the following forms:





	 	•	 	Cash
	 
	 	•	 	Common Stock




Each director completes a written election before the beginning of each calendar year specifying
the types and percentages of compensation to be paid in each form of payment. If a director
chooses to be paid in common stock, the director receives a 25 percent premium in restricted stock
with voting and dividend rights which vests and the restrictions are removed on the vesting date of
the immediately preceding annual grant.



The Non-Employee Executive Chairman’s retainer for 2008 will be paid in restricted stock units
which are immediately vested but payout is deferred until the Executive Chairman leaves the Board.



The Special Committee Chairman’s retainer for 2008 will be paid in vested common stock with a 25
percent premium in restricted stock with voting and dividend rights which vests and the
restrictions are removed on May 20, 2009.




Equity Compensation 





	 	•	 	Annual grant of 6,000 shares of restricted stock with voting and dividend rights.
 The shares vest and the restrictions are removed on the one-year anniversary of the grant
date.
	 
	 	•	 	Initial grant of 5,000 shares of restricted stock which vests and the restrictions are
removed on the vesting date of the immediately preceding annual grant.
§ 456.712 Annual report. ( a ) *DUR Board report.* The State must require the DUR Board to prepare and submit an annual DUR report to the Medicaid agency that contains information specified by the State.
( b ) *Medicaid agency report.* The Medicaid agency must prepare and submit, on an annual basis, a report to the Secretary that incorporates the DUR Board's report and includes the following information: ( 1 ) A description of the nature and scope of the prospective drug review program.
( 2 ) A description of how pharmacies performing prospective DUR without computers are expected to comply with the statutory requirement for written criteria.
( 3 ) Detailed information on the specific criteria and standards in use. After the first annual report, information regarding only new or changed criteria must be provided and deleted criteria must be identified.
( 4 ) A description of the steps taken by the State to include in the prospective and retrospective DUR program drugs dispensed to residents of a nursing facility that is not in compliance with the drug regimen review procedures set forth in part 483 of this chapter. After the first annual report, only changes must be reported.
( 5 ) A description of the actions taken by the State Medicaid agency and the DUR Board to ensure compliance with the requirements for predetermined standards at § 456.703(f) and with the access to the predetermined standards requirement at § 456.703(g). After the first annual report, only changes must be reported.
( 6 ) A description of the nature and scope of the retrospective DUR program.
( 7 ) A summary of the educational interventions used and an assessment of the effect of these educational interventions on the quality of care.
( 8 ) A description of the steps taken by the State Agency to monitor compliance by pharmacies with the prospective DUR counseling requirements contained in Federal and State laws and regulations. After the first annual report, only changes must be reported.
( 9 ) Clear statements of purpose that delineate the respective goals, objectives, and scopes of responsibility of the DUR and surveillance and utilization (SUR) functions. These statements must clarify the working relationships between DUR and SUR functions and other entities such as the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and State Board of Pharmacy. The annual report also must include a statement delineating how functional separation will be maintained between the fraud and abuse activities and the educational activities. After the first annual report, only changes must be reported.
( 10 ) An estimate of the cost savings generated as a result of the DUR program. This report must identify costs of DUR and savings to the Medicaid drug program attributable to prospective and retrospective DUR.
( c ) *Public availability.* All fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care DUR reports received by CMS under paragraph (b) of this section and, as applicable, pursuant to § 438.3(s) of this chapter, will be publicly posted on a website maintained by CMS for the sharing of reports and other information concerning Medicaid DUR programs.
[57 FR 49408, Nov. 2, 1992, as amended at 85 FR 87104, Dec. 31, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 431
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 431 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010.

§ 431.214 Notice in cases of probable fraud. The agency may shorten the period of advance notice to 5 days before the date of action if— ( a ) The agency has facts indicating that action should be taken because of probable fraud by the beneficiary; and
( b ) The facts have been verified, if possible, through secondary sources.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00175-CV

ILVA NICHOLE GREENIDGE APPELLANT

V.

KEVIN ANTONY GREENIDGE APPELLEE

------------

FROM THE 360TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

On September 7, 2010, we notified Appellant Ilva Nichole Greenidge that 

her brief did not comply with state appellate rules 9.4(h) and 38.1(a), (c), (d), (f), 

(g), (i), (j), and (k),2nor did it comply with subsections A and E of this court’s local

appellate rule 1.3 We allowed Appellant until September 17, 2010, to file an 

 

1See Tex. R. App. 47.4.

2See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(h), 38.1(a), (c), (d), (f), (g), (i)-(k). 

3See 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1(A), (E).
2

amended brief that complied with the above rules. We stated in our letter to 

Appellant that her failure to timely file an amended brief in compliance with the 

above rules could result in the waiver of noncomplying points, our striking her 

brief, or the dismissal of her appeal.4 Appellant has not filed an amended brief. 

Accordingly, we strike Appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for want of 

prosecution.5

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 14, 2010

 

4See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).

5See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).
#### Marie Cowart HEAD v. BRADLEY & BRAUD, INC., et al.

No. 64019.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 16, 1979.

In re: Marie Cowart Head, applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension.

Writ denied.

TATE, J., dissents for the reasons assigned.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.

TATE, Justice

(dissenting from the denial of writs).

After a divorce, the husband conveyed the wife’s community interest in property acquired during the community in fraud of her rights. The public records doctrine does not protect the sale by one not the owner of property conveyed. Redmann, The Louisiana Law of Recordation, 39 Tul.L.Rev. 491, 495, 500 (see footnote 36), 1965. *Humphreys v. Royal,*215 La. 567, 41 So.2d 220 (1949) should be reconsidered, if it is in conflict with these principles.
- Office Home
- Key Topics

HomeKey Topics...Commercial Diplomacy

# Commercial Diplomacy

## Tools for Business

*CBA serves as the focal point for the Department’s outreach to the U.S. business community and has primary responsibility in the Department for developing, analyzing, and coordinating efforts to vigorously support and facilitate U.S. business interests abroad.*

Working closely with the Department’s regional bureaus, other U.S. Government agencies, and Congress to promote support for U.S. businesses abroad, the Commercial and Business Affairs division provides assistance to U.S. firms seeking help with business problems abroad by coordinating the Department’s advocacy efforts on behalf of U.S. companies, connecting American firms to resources at U.S. embassies, and identifying commercial information and market opportunities for the U.S. business community.

## 							Discover More						

		Tools for Business		Read more 

		Direct Line for American Business		Read more 

		Key Topics		Read more 

Back to Top
HomeFY 2018 Department of State Agency Financial Report...Long Description for the FY 2018 Compensation System Vision and Concept Diagram

# 									Long Description for the FY 2018 Compensation System Vision and Concept Diagram							

Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services

November 15, 2018

Diagram depicting the compensation system vision and concept. This three-panel graphic shows the state of the Department’s compensation systems from 2008, through today, and into the future. It shows the progression of improvements as the Department continues to implement its global vision of an integrated compensation system. 

The 2008 panel shows six compensation systems and their connections. In this panel, the legacy Foreign Affairs Retirement and Disability System (FARADS) is shown in the lower left as a stand-alone system, unconnected to the other compensation systems but with a link to Human Resources (HR). The Windows Time and Attendance system is shown in the middle of the panel, with connections to the two separate Foreign Service National (FSN) pay systems, based in Charleston, South Carolina and Bangkok, Thailand and to the Consolidated American Payroll System (CAPPS). CAPPS also is shown receiving input from the Web-based Information Network Time and Attendance Telecommunications Line system and feeding information to the Retirement Records System. At the top of the panel, connections from the FSN systems are shown to posts, bureaus, and serviced agencies. 

The middle panel depicts the current state of the compensation system concept. This panel differs from the first as FARADS is replaced by the Global Foreign Affairs Compensation System (GFACS) for annuitants and FSNPay is replaced by Locally Employed (LE) staff. GFACS is linked to the Windows Time and Attendance system and feeds directly to posts, bureaus, and serviced agencies. 

The third panel represents the future vision, with GFACS providing American employees, annuitants, and LE staff payroll and time and attendance services. GFACS will link to HR and to posts, bureaus, and serviced agencies.

Back to Text

Back to Top
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 13, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Paul W. Mobley                     |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial |   |
|               |   | Officer of Noble Roman’s, Inc.        |   |
|               |   |                                        |   |
EXHIBIT 32
                                                           ----------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                          THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB/A of Touchstone Applied Science Associates,
Inc. (the "Company"), for the quarter ended April 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
L. Simon, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Touchstone
Applied Science Associates, Inc., to the best of my
knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  June 13, 20045


                                /s/ ANDREW L. SIMON
                                ---------------------------

                                Andrew L. Simon, President,
                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Touchstone Applied
Science Associates, Inc. and will be retained by
Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4360

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DONNELL MANN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00444-WDQ-2)
Submitted: August 10, 2009 Decided: August 25, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Donnell Mann pled guilty to a Hobbs Act conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2006) (Count 2); to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006) (Count 3); and to possession of firearms in furtherance of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 2009) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 5). Despite the fact that Mann’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 262-327 months, the district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment: 180-month concurrent sentences for Counts 2 and 3 and a 60-month consecutive sentence for Count 5. On appeal, Mann alleges that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.We review sentences under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 590 (2007). We find no significant procedural or substantive error. Id. at 597; United States v. Pauley , 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). We note that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness on appeal to a within-Guidelines

sentence. Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); see Nelson v. United States , 129 S. Ct. 890, 892 (2009) (emphasizingthat the presumption of reasonableness accorded a within23 Guidelines sentence is an appellate court presumption rather than a presumption enjoyed by a sentencing court). Thus, we decline to find an abuse of discretion in this instance where a district court exercised its discretion to sentence a defendant below that range. See United States v. Moreland , 437 F.3d 424, 434-36 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10772 Summary Calendar

JOSEPH STEWART, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE STATE OF TEXAS; WARDEN TREON; RICHARD WATHEN, Warden, Allred Unit; NO FIRST NAME MOONEYHAM; NO FIRST NAME MUNOZ, DR.; NO FIRST NAME DIDLO, DR., Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:01-CV-78-R

-------------------- October 17, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that Texas state prisoner # 602302 Joseph Stewart’s application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED, because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.No. 01-10772 - 2 - There is no arguable merit to Stewart’s contention that he had the right to file a federal criminal complaint against the State of Texas and some of its prison officials. See , e.g. , Bass v. Angler Sportsman Society v. United States Steel Corp. , 324 F. Supp. 412, 415 (S.D. Ala.), aff’d , 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1971); Smith v. United States , 375 F.2d 243, 246-48 (5th Cir. 1967). The district court did not err by treating Stewart’s pleading as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous and by not sua sponte granting him leave to amend it.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The dismissal of Stewart’s complaint as frivolous and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each counts as a “strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We note that Stewart has at least one other strike against him. See Stewart v. Scott , No. G-95-15 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 1996). By accumulating three strikes, Stewart is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis in any subsequent civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stewart’s motions for appointment of counsel and oral argument are DENIED. MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR
INVOKED.
§ 435.123 Individuals eligible as qualified Medicare beneficiaries. ( a ) *Basis.* This section implements sections 1902(a)(10)(E)(i) and 1905(p)(1) of the Act.
( b ) *Eligibility.* The agency must provide medical assistance to individuals who meet all of the following: ( 1 ) Are entitled to Medicare Part A based on the eligibility requirements set forth in § 406.5(a) or § 406.20(b) of this chapter or who are enrolled in Medicare Part B for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs based on eligibility requirements described in § 407.55 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Have an income, subject to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, that does not exceed 100 percent of the Federal poverty level. ( i ) During a transition month (as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section), any income attributable to a cost of living adjustment in Social Security retirement, survivors, or disability benefits does not count in determining an individual's income.
( ii ) A transition month is any month of the year beginning when the cost of living adjustment takes effect, through the month following the month of publication of the revised official poverty level.
( 3 ) Have resources, determined using financial methodologies no more restrictive than SSI, that do not exceed three times the maximum resource level allowed under the SSI program, annually adjusted by increases in the Consumer Price Index for inflation as defined in section 1905(p)(1)(C) of the Act.
( c ) *Scope.* Medical assistance included in paragraph (b) of this section includes all of the following: ( 1 ) For individuals entitled to Medicare Part A as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, coverage for Parts A and B premiums and cost sharing, including deductibles and coinsurance, and copays.
( 2 ) For individuals enrolled in Medicare Part B for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, only coverage of premiums and cost sharing related to enrollment in Medicare Part B for coverage of immunosuppressive drugs.
[87 FR 66511, Nov. 3, 2022]