alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Executive Supplementary Retirement Agreement



 Exhibit 10.26 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYEE SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT AGREEMENT 
 In accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Employee Supplementary Retirement Agreement effective as of the 25th day of August, 1999 by and between the
Ingersoll-Rand Company, hereinafter called the Company, and Herbert L. Henkel, hereinafter called the Employee (the “Agreement”), the Agreement is hereby amended as set forth below: 
  

	 	1.	The last sentence of Paragraph 1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 

 Such payments shall commence as of the later of (a) the first day of the seventh month following the date of the Employee’s separation from service (as determined under the general rules under section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended), or (b) the first business day of the first calendar year following the date of the Employee’s separation from service. 
  

	 	2.	A new Paragraph 14 is added to the Agreement to read as follows: 

 This Agreement shall be interpreted and carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements of section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this 22nd day of December, 2008. 
  

			
	Ingersoll-Rand Company
		
	By:	 	/s/ Marcia J. Avedon
		
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President, HR & Communications
	
	/s/ Herbert L. Henkel
	Employee
#### Virgil O. HOOKER; Dora E. Hooker; David Hooker; Gloria J. Hooker; Appellants, v. Bentley E. STORY, Appellee.

No. 98-2786.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 26, 1'998.

Decided Nov. 9, 1998.

See also: 141 F.3d 1168.

Appellants, pro se.

*1140Shirley E. Guntharp, Little Rock AR, argued, for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After Virgil O. Hooker, Dora E. Hooker, David O. Hooker, and Gloria J. Hooker were unsuccessful in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Arkansas Chancery Judge Bentley E. Story, *see Hooker v. Story,*No. 98-1658 (8th Cir. Apr. 7, 1998) (unpublished per curiam), they filed the instant lawsuit against him, this time seeking declaratory relief based on the same facts. In addition, relying on the adverse outcome of the prior lawsuit, plaintiffs moved for recusal of the District Court judge.1 The District Court denied plaintiffs’ recusal motion and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appeal.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Hookers’ recusal motion. See *Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 541, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality recusal motion”); *A.J. by L.B. v. Kierst,*56 F.3d 849, 861 (8th Cir.1995) (discussion of district court judge’s refusal to disqualify himself; standard of review). We also conclude the District Court correctly dismissed the Hookers’ complaint on the basis of res judicata. See *Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie,*452 U.S. 394, 398-99 & n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981) (final judgment on merits of action precludes same parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action; dismissal for failure to state claim constitutes merits adjudication). We find the Hookers’ remaining arguments on appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0336

_________________

MARY E. VanBUSKIRK and ROGER A. 

BARBER,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

PATRICIA DOW GEHLEN and RAYMOND G. 

GEHLEN, Trustees, GEHLEN PATRICIA DOW 

TRUST,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable David Cybulski, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 16 2020

12/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0336
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 7.41 Renewal of international registration and extension of protection.

(a) Any request to renew an international registration and its extension of protection to the United States must be made at the International Bureau in accordance with Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol.

(b) A request to renew an international registration or extension of protection to the United States submitted through the Office will not be processed.
Editorial Note on Part 202
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 202 appear at 76 FR 27898, May 13, 2011.

§ 202.24 Deposit of published electronic works available only online. ( a ) Pursuant to authority under 17 U.S.C. 407(d), the Register of Copyrights may make written demand to deposit one complete copy or a phonorecord of an electronic work published in the United States and available only online upon the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication in the work, under the following conditions: ( 1 ) Demands may be made only for works in those categories identified in § 202.19(c)(5) as being subject to demand.
( 2 ) Demands may be made only for electronic-only serials published on or after February 24, 2010.
( 3 ) Demands may be made only for electronic-only books published on or after December 14, 2020.
( 4 ) The owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication must deposit the demanded work within three months of the date the demand notice is received.
( 5 ) Copies or phonorecords deposited in response to a demand must be able to be accessed and reviewed by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, and the Library's authorized users on an ongoing basis.
( b ) *Technical standards.* Technical standards for the transmission of copies of electronic-only works to the Copyright Office in response to a demand will be available on the Copyright Office website (*www.copyright.gov*).
( c ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) “Best edition” has the meaning set forth in § 202.19(b)(1).
( 2 ) “Complete copy” has the meaning set forth in § 202.19(b)(2).
( 3 ) “Electronic-only” works are electronic works that are published and available only online.
( d ) *Special relief.* ( 1 ) In the case of any demand made under paragraph (a) of this section, the Register of Copyrights may, after consultation with other appropriate officials of the Library of Congress and upon such conditions as the Register may determine after such consultation, ( i ) Extend the time period provided in 17 U.S.C. 407(d);
( ii ) Permit the deposit of incomplete copies or phonorecords; or
( iii ) Permit the deposit of copies or phonorecords other than those normally comprising the best edition.
( 2 ) Any decision as to whether to grant such special relief, and the conditions under which special relief is to be granted, shall be made by the Register of Copyrights after consultation with other appropriate officials of the Library of Congress, and shall be based upon the acquisition policies of the Library of Congress then in force.
( 3 ) Requests for special relief under this section shall be made in writing to Acquisitions and Deposits, shall be signed by or on behalf of the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication in the work, and shall set forth specific reasons why the request should be granted.
[75 FR 3869, Jan. 25, 2010, as amended at 82 FR 9362, Feb. 6, 2017; 85 FR 71837, Nov. 12, 2020; 86 FR 32642, June 22, 2021]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.325 Other mistakes not corrected.

Mistakes other than those provided for in §§ 1.322, 1.323, 1.324, and not affording legal grounds for reissue or for reexamination, will not be corrected after the date of the patent.

(35 U.S.C. 6, Pub. L. 97-247)

[48 FR 2714, Jan. 20, 1983]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2020 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2020-2, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





1. CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.





3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2021 and ending on February 28, 2022 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.








Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 27th day of May, 2022.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President and Treasurer
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

§ 41.156 Compelling testimony and production. ( a ) *Authorization required.* A party seeking to compel testimony or production of documents or things must file a miscellaneous motion for authorization. The miscellaneous motion must describe the general relevance of the testimony, document, or thing and must: ( 1 ) In the case of testimony, identify the witness by name or title, and
( 2 ) In the case of a document or thing, the general nature of the document or thing.
( b ) *Outside the United States.* For testimony or production sought outside the United States, the motion must also: ( 1 ) *In the case of testimony.* ( i ) Identify the foreign country and explain why the party believes the witness can be compelled to testify in the foreign country, including a description of the procedures that will be used to compel the testimony in the foreign country and an estimate of the time it is expected to take to obtain the testimony; and
( ii ) Demonstrate that the party has made reasonable efforts to secure the agreement of the witness to testify in the United States but has been unsuccessful in obtaining the agreement, even though the party has offered to pay the expenses of the witness to travel to and testify in the United States.
( 2 ) *In the case of production of a document or thing.* ( i ) Identify the foreign country and explain why the party believes production of the document or thing can be compelled in the foreign country, including a description of the procedures that will be used to compel production of the document or thing in the foreign country and an estimate of the time it is expected to take to obtain production of the document or thing; and
( ii ) Demonstrate that the party has made reasonable efforts to obtain the agreement of the individual or entity having possession, custody, or control of the document to produce the document or thing in the United States but has been unsuccessful in obtaining that agreement, even though the party has offered to pay the expenses of producing the document or thing in the United States.
§ 57.311 Cancellation of nursing student loans for disability or death. ( a ) *Permanent and total disability.* The Secretary will cancel a borrower's indebtedness in accordance with section 836(b)(4) of the Act if the borrower is found to be permanently and totally disabled on recommendation of the school and as supported by whatever medical certification the Secretary may require. A borrower is totally and permanently disabled if he or she is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity because of a medically determinable impairment, which the Secretary expects to continue for a long time or to result in death.
( b ) *Death.* The Secretary will cancel a borrower's indebtedness in accordance with section 836(b)(4) of the Act upon the death of the borrower. The school to which the borrower was indebted must secure a certification of death or whatever official proof is conclusive under State law.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0915-0047) [50 FR 34434, Aug. 23, 1985, as amended at 56 FR 13772, Apr. 4, 1991]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL A. LUJAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BILL FORD, Individual Capacity &Official 

Capacity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35638 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02015-MO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Oregon state prisoner Michael A. Lujan appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law 

claims arising from his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of the statute of 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 27 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-35638 

limitations. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 

(9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Lujan’s action as time-barred because 

Lujan filed this action after the applicable statute of limitations had run, and he did 

not establish that equitable tolling or equitable estoppel applied. See Douglas v. 

Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the statute of 

limitations for § 1983 actions is the state law statute of limitations for personal 

injury actions, and that the applicable Oregon statute of limitations is two years); 

see also Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275(9) (two-year statute of limitations for actions 

under Oregon law arising from “any act or omission of a public body or an officer, 

employee or agent of a public body”); Luchini Vy & Through Luchini v. Harsany, 

779 P.2d 1053, 1055-56 (Or. Ct. App. 1998) (voluntary dismissal of prior action 

does not toll statute of limitations); Gehrke v. CraftCo, Inc., 923 P.2d 1333, 1338 

(Or. Ct. App. 1996) (elements of equitable estoppel). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lujan’s motions for 

reconsideration because Lujan failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See SEC 

v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting 

forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 
3 16-35638 

59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Lujan’s pending motion (Docket Entry No. 38) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1820

MILDRED CLOVIS, Petitioner, versus FMC MINING EQUIPMENT DIVISION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (01-689-BLA, 99-41-BLA) Submitted: March 25, 2003 Decided: April 28, 2003 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy F. Cogan, CASSIDY, MYERS, COGAN, VOEGELIN & TENNANT, L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul E. Frampton, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mildred Clovis seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Clovis v. FMC Mining Equip. Div. , No. 01-689-BLA (BRB May 30, 2002). 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
<PAGE>

                          [Front of Stock Certificate]

                         INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF

                             STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

                          QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORP.

                                  Common Stock
                            $0.01 Par Value Per Share

This Certifies that ______________[SPECIMEN]_________________________________
Is the owner of ______________________________ Shares of the Capital Stock of
                               Quintiles Transnational Corp.
Transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in Person
or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF.  The said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed By its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed this ______ day of ____________________A.D. 20______





------------------------------              ------------------------------------
Secretary                                   Chairman of the Board


<PAGE>


                           [Back of Stock Certificate]


                          Quintiles Transnational Corp.

                                   Certificate
                                       For
                                     ______
                                     Shares
                                       Of
                                  Capital Stock
                                    ISSUED TO
                        _________________________________

                                      DATED

                        _________________________________


For Value Received, _____ hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto
________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________ Shares
of the Capital Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint _____________________________________________
to transfer the said Stock on the books of the within named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises.

Dated ______________ ______
      In presence of

___________________________     _____________________________________________

Notice: The signature of this assignment must correspond with the name as
written upon the face of the certificate, in every particular, without
alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever.





                                       2
#### § 61.17 Termination on grounds other than those relating to moral character or loyalty.

The Surgeon General may terminate a fellowship upon receipt from the fellow of a written request for termination. The Surgeon General shall terminate any fellowship prior to the date it would otherwise expire if he determines that the fellow's performance is unsatisfactory or that the fellow or the sponsoring institution is unfit or unable to carry out the purpose of the fellowship. The fellow and the sponsoring institution shall be notified in writing of such termination.
#### § 353.5 Participation not required.

In any case in which a response to a rehearing motion is allowed, or rehearing is granted, an opposing party shall not be required to participate in the rehearing. The Copyright Royalty Judges will not draw any negative inference from a lack of participation in a rehearing. Nonparticipation in rehearing proceedings may limit the scope of their participation in judicial review proceedings as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 803(d)(1).

[70 FR 30905, May 31, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 53330, Sept. 11, 2006]