alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.8.5


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 6

TO

THE MACERICH COMPANY

EXECUTIVE OFFICER SALARY DEFERRAL PLAN


 


WHEREAS, The
Macerich Company (the “Company”) has established The Macerich Company Executive
Officer Salary Deferral Plan (the “Plan”) to provide supplemental retirement
income benefits through prior salary deferrals for certain of its executive
officers; and


 


WHEREAS, it is
appropriate and desirable to amend the Plan to permit Edward Coppola to make a
new distribution election during 2008 pursuant to transition relief provided in
Treasury Regulations and Internal Revenue Service guidance under Section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 8.4
of the Plan provides for the amendment of the Plan.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the
Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective January 1, 2008, or
such other date or dates as may be specified below.


 


ARTICLE III

DEFERRAL ELECTIONS


 


Section 3.1 of the Plan is amended by adding a new subsection (h) to
the end thereof to read as follows:


 


(g)           2008 Transition Relief
Distribution Election by Edward Coppola. 
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.1(c) hereof,
Edward C. Coppola, Jr. may designate a new date or dates for the
distribution of benefits to him under the Plan by filing a new election with
the Committee on or after January 1, 2008 and on or before December 31,
2008.  Any such new election shall apply
only to amounts that would not otherwise be payable in 2008 and shall not cause
any amount to be paid in 2008 that would not otherwise be payable in 2008.  Any such new election shall be irrevocable.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to execute this amendment
this 24th day of November, 2008.


 


	
   

  	
  THE MACERICH COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Richard A. Bayer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Richard A. Bayer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior Executive Vice President, Chief

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Legal Officer & Secretary
#### § 436.800 Scope.

This subpart prescribes financial requirements for determining the eligibility of medically needy individuals under subpart D of this part.
EXHIBIT 10.38.2



 Exhibit 10.38.2 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. EXECUTIVE LIFE PROGRAM 
 Effective January 1, 2009, the program shall be amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Section 4.2: 
 “The Gross-Up Payment shall be paid promptly, and no later than December 31 of the year after the year in which the Participant’s
Beneficiary remits the federal and state income taxes imposed upon the Death Benefit and the Gross-Up Payment.” 
 Adopted pursuant to resolutions of the Benefits Committee the 10th day of December, 2008.
### Geology of the North Bradfield River iron prospect, southeastern Alaska

By: E.M. MacKevett Jr.M. C. Blake Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1108D

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (1585 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (2195 pdf)                        
-                                 Larger Work: This publication is Chapter                                D of                                                                              Mineral resources of Alaska, 1959-63                                                                    
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 493.1836 State onsite monitoring. ( a ) *Application.* ( 1 ) CMS may require continuous or intermittent monitoring of a plan of correction by the State survey agency to ensure that the laboratory makes the improvements necessary to bring it into compliance with the condition level requirements. (The State monitor does not have management authority, that is, cannot hire or fire staff, obligate funds, or otherwise dictate how the laboratory operates. The monitor's responsibility is to oversee whether corrections are made.)
( 2 ) The laboratory must pay the costs of onsite monitoring by the State survey agency. ( i ) The costs are computed by multiplying the number of hours of onsite monitoring in the laboratory by the hourly rate negotiated by CMS and the State.
( ii ) The hourly rate includes salary, fringe benefits, travel, and other direct and indirect costs approved by CMS.
( b ) *Procedures.* Before imposing this sanction, CMS provides notice of sanction and opportunity to respond in accordance with § 493.1810.
( c ) *Duration of sanction.* ( 1 ) If CMS imposes onsite monitoring, the sanction continues until CMS determines that the laboratory has the capability to ensure compliance with all condition level requirements.
( 2 ) If the laboratory does not correct all deficiencies within 12 months, and a revisit indicates that deficiencies remain, CMS cancels the laboratory's approval for Medicare payment for its services and notifies the laboratory of its intent to suspend, limit, or revoke the laboratory's certificate of compliance, registration certificate, certificate of accreditation, or certificate for PPM procedures.
( 3 ) If the laboratory still does not correct its deficiencies, the Medicare sanction continues until the suspension, limitation, or revocation of the laboratory's certificate of compliance, registration certificate, certificate of accreditation, or certificate for PPM procedures is effective.
[57 FR 7237, Feb. 28, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 20051, Apr. 24, 1995]
§ 478.10 Scope. This subpart establishes the requirements and procedures for— ( a ) Reconsiderations conducted by a Utilization and Quality Control Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) or its subcontractor of initial denial determinations concerning services furnished or proposed to be furnished under Medicare;
( b ) Hearings and judicial review of reconsidered determinations; and
( c ) QIO review of a change in diagnostic and procedural coding information.
[50 FR 15372, Apr. 17, 1985; 50 FR 41887, Oct. 16, 1985. Redesignated at 64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999]
§ 483.158 FFP for nurse aide training and competency evaluation. ( a ) State expenditures for nurse aide training and competency evaluation programs and competency evaluation programs are administrative costs. They are matched as indicated in § 433.15(b)(8) of this chapter.
( b ) FFP is available for State expenditures associated with nurse aide training and competency evaluation programs and competency evaluation programs only for— ( 1 ) Nurse aides employed by a facility;
( 2 ) Nurse aides who have an offer of employment from a facility;
( 3 ) Nurse aides who become employed by a facility not later than 12 months after completing a nurse aide training and competency evaluation program or competency evaluation program; or
( 4 ) Nurse aides who receive an offer of employment from a facility not later than 12 months after completing a nurse aide training and competency evaluation program or competency evaluation program.
#### § 412.98 [Reserved]
#### § 498.15 Charge for transcripts.

A party that requests a transcript of prehearing or hearing proceedings or Board review must pay the actual or estimated cost of preparing the transcript unless, for good cause shown by that party, the payment is waived by the ALJ or the Departmental Appeals Board, as appropriate.

[52 FR 22446, June 12, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 51021, Sept. 30, 1996]
§ 478.12 Statutory basis. ( a ) Under section 1154 of the Act, a QIO may make an initial determination that services furnished or proposed to be furnished are not reasonable, necessary, or delivered in the most appropriate setting.
( b ) Under section 1155 of the Act, the following rules apply: ( 1 ) A Medicare beneficiary, a provider, or an attending practitioner who is dissatisfied with an initial denial determination under paragraph (a) of this section is entitled to a reconsideration by the QIO that made that determination.
( 2 ) The beneficiary is also entitled to the following: ( i ) A hearing by an administrative law judge if $200 or more is still in controversy after a reconsidered determination.
( ii ) Judicial review if $2000 or more is still in controversy after a final determination by the Department.
( c ) Under section 1866(a)(1)(F) of the Act, a hospital that is reimbursed by the Medicare program must maintain an agreement with a QIO under which the QIO reviews the validity of diagnostic information furnished by the hospital.
[50 FR 15372, Apr. 17, 1985, as amended at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995. Redesignated at 64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999]
#### § 488.312 Consistency of survey results.

CMS does and the survey agency must implement programs to measure accuracy and improve consistency in the application of survey results and enforcement remedies.
Order entered March 4, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01672-CR

No. 05-13-01720-CR

FRANCISCO JAVIER ESCOBAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-59278-M, F11-71776-M

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeals, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeals.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeals 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
dex1018.htm


    AMENDMENT
2008-2

     

    MERCURY
GENERAL CORPORATION

     

    PROFIT
SHARING PLAN

     

    WHEREAS, Mercury General
Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Mercury General Corporation Profit
Sharing Plan (the “Plan”); and

     

    WHEREAS, pursuant to Section
9.1 of the Plan, the Company is authorized to amend the Plan; and

     

    WHEREAS, the Company desires
to amend the Plan to reflect certain changes in the federal tax laws and related
Treasury Regulations; and

     

    WHEREAS, the Company desires
to amend the Plan to amend the Plan to provide for the acceptance, at the
Company’s discretion, of in-kind rollovers of participant loan balances in
connection with a merger, acquisition or similar corporate
transaction.

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is
amended, effective as of the dates specified below, as follows.

     

    1. The
definition of “Compensation” in Section 1.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by
adding the following to the end of the first full paragraph
thereof:

    


    “, and
all compensation paid or includible following a Break in
Employment.”

     

    2. The last
sentence of Section 3.4(a) of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

    


    “Amounts
transferred to the Trust must be in cash, except that individuals who become
Eligible Employees as a result of a merger, acquisition or similar transaction
may, if permitted by the Company, make in-kind rollovers of participant loans
that are distributed to such Eligible Employees in connection with such merger,
acquisition or transaction.”

     

    3. The
definition of “Section 415 Compensation” in Section A.1 of Appendix A of the
Plan is hereby amended by adding the following to the end of the first sentence
immediately following subsection “(d)” to read in its entirety as
follows”

    


    “, and
excluding all compensation paid or includible following a Break in Employment,
except as provided under applicable Treasury Regulations.”

     

    4. Section
A.2(d) of Appendix A of the Plan is deleted.

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company has caused its duly authorized officers to execute this amendment to the
Plan this 7th day of
November, 2008.

     

    


    


    
      	
              MERCURY
      GENERAL CORPORATION

            
	 
      
	 
      
	
              By:   /s/
      GABRIEL TIRADOR

            
	 
      
	
              Its:    President
      and CEO
§ 491.4 Compliance with Federal, State and local laws. The rural health clinic or FQHC and its staff are in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. ( a ) *Licensure of clinic or center.* The clinic or center is licensed pursuant to applicable State and local law.
( b ) *Licensure, certification or registration of personnel.* Staff of the clinic or center are licensed, certified or registered in accordance with applicable State and local laws.
[57 FR 24982, June 12, 1992]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         253,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               320,369
<PP&E>                                       8,906,367
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,308,560)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,918,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,182
<BONDS>                                      6,283,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,459,965)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,918,176
<SALES>                                      1,380,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,398,357
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  704,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                64,336
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             459,758
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (256,037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (256,037)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (256,037)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (22.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (22.88)


</TABLE>
41330.

#### WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS.

Hall, Judge.

This is an action on a decree of a Tennessee court in which the plaintiff seeks to recover child support payments awarded by that court in a divorce case, the decree ordering payment of $125 a month by the defendant to the plaintiff. *786The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant assigns error on this judgment and on antecedent rulings of the trial court on demurrers. *Held:*

Argued May 5, 1965

Decided May 19, 1965

Rehearing denied June 8, 1965.

*Robert R. Tisdale, Thomas H. Antonion,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kilpatrick, Cody, Rogers, McClatchey & Regenstein, George B. Haley, Jr., Jeff Davis, Jr.,*contra.

The overruling of the defendant’s demurrers to the petition, if error, is not shown to have hindered him in preparing his defense. *Jacobs v. Rittenbaum,*193 Ga. 838, 839 (20 SE2d 425); *Aycock v. Williams,*185 Ga. 585, 589 (196 SE 54); *Whitner v. Whitner,*207 Ga. 97, 99 (60 SE2d 464) ; *Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Dressel,*220 Ga. 354, 355 (138 SE2d 886); *Bell v. Tucker,*37 Ga. App. 254 (139 SE 573); *Cline v. Nelson,*46 Ga. App. 600, 605 (168 SE 70); *Steed v. Harris,*52 Ga. App. 581, 582 (183 SE 847); *Gaulding v. Courts,*90 Ga. App. 472, 475 (93 SE2d 288); *Glover v. Maddox,*98 Ga. App. 548, 558 (106 SE2d 288); *Lam Amusement Co. v. Waddell,*105 Ga. App. 1, 4 (123 SE2d 310).

The parties contend that the law of Tennessee is to be applied to the defense asserted by the defendant in his answer. Under Tennessee law, and under Georgia law, in an action to enforce a court decree ordering a father to make payments for the support of a child, the fact that the father has been denied visitation privileges is not a valid defense. Thomas v. Thomas, 206 Tenn. 584 (335 SW2d 827); *Stewart v. Stewart,*217 Ga. 509 (123 SE2d 547); *Phillips v. Phillips,*73 Ga. App. 18 (35 SE2d 520).

The trial court did not err in sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrers to the defendant’s answer.

There being no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Ga. L. 1959, p. 234 *(Code Ann.*§ 110-1203); *Wells v. Wells,*216 Ga. 384 (116 SE2d 586); *Studstill v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 766, 768 (115 SE2d 374); *Scales v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42 (118 SE2d 193).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 91-8656

FEDERICO MARTINEZ-MACIAS, Texas Department of Corrections, Death Row Inmate, No. 771, Petitioner-Appellee,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas

( December 11, 1992 )

Before POLITZ , Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

We review today the judgment of the United Stat es District

Court granting a writ of habeas corpus on the petition of Federico

Martinez-Macias convicted of capital murder in Texas and now on

death row in that state. We affirm the judgment below for

essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate-judge in her

report and recommendation, and the order of the district court

adopting it. We have read the record, read the briefs, and heard

oral argument. We are left with the firm conviction that Macias

was denied his constitutional right to adeq uate counsel in a2

capital case in which actual innocence was a close question. The

state paid defense counsel $11.84 per ho ur. Unfortunately, the

justice system got only what it paid for.

The judgment granting the petition for habeas corpus is

affirmed. The judgment of conviction is vacated and Federico

Martinez-Macias shall be released from custody if the State of

Texas has not commenced a new trial within 120 days of our mandate.
#### Patricia WOODARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-104.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 6, 1979.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Rendell Brown, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Max Rudmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the alleged violation of three conditions, appellant’s probation was revoked. One of the conditions allegedly violated was the provision that appellant fully comply with Section 945.30, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974), requiring probationers to contribute to the cost of their supervision. In order to revoke probation for failure to comply with said statute the trial court must find that the probationer's financial condition was such that she could make the required payment; there must be a finding of an ability to pay. *Coxon v. State,*365 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). The record in this case contains no adequate finding of the appellant’s ability to comply with the condition in question.

Accordingly, the order revoking appellant’s probation based upon a violation of Condition Four by failing to comply with Section 945.30, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974), is reversed and that part of said order is stricken. However, the order revoking appellant’s probation based upon the other violations contained in the Amended *709Affidavit filed December 1, 1977, is affirmed.

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1818

In re: WILLIE A. KEY

,

Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court of South Carolina

, at Charleston . ( 2:23

- cv

- 00770

- DCN

- MHC )

Submitted : September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Willie A. Key , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1818 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Willie A. Key petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has

unduly delayed in serving his amended complaint

. He seeks an order from this court

directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the

magi strate judge recently recommended dismissing Key’s complaint without service of

process

. A ccordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before t his

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1818 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2