alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                   ENDORSEMENT

                                       TO

                 FACULTATIVE OBLIGATORY RETROCESSIONAL AGREEMENT
                    (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement")

                                     between

               PXRE REINSURANCE COMPANY and PXRE REINSURANCE LTD.
                  (hereinafter referred to as the "Companies")

                                       and

                           SELECT REINSURANCE COMPANY
                  (hereinafter referred to as the "Reinsurer")


It is understood and agreed that effective January 1, 2003, the participation of
the Reinsurer is 8%.

Under terms of the Agreement, the Reinsurer agrees to assume severally and not
jointly with other participants a 8% share of the Companies' Net Retained Line
(with a maximum cession of $1,600,000 per reinsurance program) of the liability
described in the attached Agreement, and as consideration of the above, the
Reinsurer shall receive 8% of the gross premium as described therein in each
case for cession made on or after 12:01 a.m., January 1, 2003, local time, for
business incepting or renewing after that date until 12:00 a.m. January 1, 2004
for business incepting and renewing before that date.


         Signed this 30th day of September, 2003.

                                              SELECT REINSURANCE LTD.

                                               BY: /s/ Brant L. Kizer

                                                TITLE: Vice President


         And this 30th day of September, 2003.

                                              PXRE REINSURANCE LTD.

                                               BY: /s/ Robert P. Myron

                                                TITLE: CFO


         And this 30th day of September, 2003.

                                              PXRE REINSURANCE COMPANY

                                               BY: /s/ Michael Bleisnick

                                                TITLE: EVP
§ 1.962 Waiver of overpayments. There shall be no collection of an overpayment, or any interest thereon, which results from participation in a benefit program administered under any law by VA when it is determined by a regional office Committee on Waivers and Compromises that collection would be against equity and good conscience. For the purpose of this regulation, the term *overpayment* refers only to those benefit payments made to a designated living payee or beneficiary in excess of the amount due or to which such payee or beneficiary is entitled. The death of an indebted payee, either prior to a request for waiver of the indebtedness or during Committee consideration of the waiver request, shall not preclude waiver consideration. There shall be no waiver consideration of an indebtedness that results from the receipt of a benefit payment by a non-payee who has no claim or entitlement to such payment. ( a ) Waiver consideration is applicable in an indebtedness resulting from work study and education loan default, as well as indebtedness of a veteran-borrower, veteran transferee, or indebted spouse of either, arising out of participation in the loan program administered under 38 U.S.C. ch. 37. Also subject to waiver consideration is an indebtedness which is the result of VA hospitalization, domiciliary care, or treatment of a veteran, either furnished in error or on the basis of tentative eligibility.
( b ) In any case where there is an indication of fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact on the part of the debtor or any other party having an interest in the claim, action on a request for waiver will be deferred pending appropriate disposition of the matter. However, the existence of a prima facie case of fraud shall, nevertheless, entitle a claimant to an opportunity to make a rebuttal with countervailing evidence; similiarly, the misrepresentation must be more than non-willful or mere inadvertence. The Committee may act on a request for waiver concerning such debts, after the Inspector General or the Regional Counsel has determined that prosecution is not indicated, or the Department of Justice has notified VA that the alleged fraud or misrepresentation does not warrant action by that department, or the Department of Justice or the appropriate United States Attorney, specifically authorized action on the request for waiver.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
[39 FR 26400, July 19, 1974, as amended at 44 FR 59906, Oct. 17, 1979; 50 FR 38803, Sept. 25, 1985; 52 FR 42112, Nov. 3, 1987]
exv10w2



 



Exhibit 10.2


AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO THE EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CHOICEPOINT INC. AND DOUGLAS C. CURLING

DATED APRIL 25, 2002



Pursuant to the action of the Management Compensation and Benefits Committee
taken on July 29, 2003, the Employment and Compensation Agreement between
ChoicePoint Inc. and Douglas C. Curling dated April 25, 2002, is hereby amended
as of July 29, 2003, as follows:



	 	 	Exhibit B is amended by changing the last sentence of Section 3(e)
“Non-Qualified Plan” to read:




		
	 	“Executive shall be entitled to a SERP contribution in the following
percentages of ‘Compensation’, as that term is defined in such plan,
for the periods indicated:




		
	 	25% from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003; and

30% for years commencing on or after January 1, 2004.”




	 	 	 
	 	
Employer

CHOICEPOINT INC.
	 	 	
 
		/s/ 	
Kenneth G. Langone
	 	


	 	Name:	
Kenneth G. Langone
	 	Title:	
Chairman, Management

Compensation & Benefits Committee
	 	 	
 
	 	
EXECUTIVE:
	 	 	
 
	 	/s/	
Douglas C. Curling
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-1592

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

DARIO DELEON, a/k/a RAFAEL GARCIA,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court, issued April 7, 2006, should be

amended as follows:

p. 30, line 21: replace "concern is" with "concern arises"

p. 32, line 7: replace "make" with "defend"

p. 36, n.13 line 2: insert "bail" between "those" and 

"requirements"
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation for Various Telephone Calls During Week of 7 October 2009 with ArkeRepresentatives Regarding Fluorinated Gas ProductionDate: 7 October 2009Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #): Deborah Ottinger, EPA, 202-343-9149, Ottinger.deborah@epa.gov; Karen Schaffner, RTI, ksschaffner@rti.org

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible):

Rich Raiders, Greg Watson of Arkema Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.):EPA and Arkema representatives discussed a number of issues related to the generation and emission of fluorinated GHGs production, as well as to measurement of these fluorinated GHG emissions. Arkema representatives noted that fluorinated and emitted from processes that do not produce fluorinated GHGs. These fluorinated GHGs may be by-products or feedstoto minimize such emissions through a Leak Detection and Repair program. Their detectors can detect many fluorinated GHCamera technology doesn’t work for HFCs. For processes that have been developed or significantly optimized over the past few years, Arkema has developed detailed including analysis of the byproducts that occur in the process and mass-balance tables to track where various flows are goinchemistry is well understood, although they could encounter an unexpected molecule. This has happened. Most streams c

GHGs go to a thermal oxidizer or to a dedicated Subpart EEE HWC incinerator. Stack test was performed for TO several yperformance-tested every 5 years. The representatives did not immediately know what chemicals the TO had been tested fArkema would prefer an emissions estimating approach that focused on “end of pipe,” what was being emitted. They have large quantities of fluorinated gases very quickly. The destruction devices are tuned to a high enough temperature to break Arkema has used ASPEN modeling programs to estimate stack emissions. The producer has analysis results for some streaon others. Arkema’s sampling philosophy is to take a few samples and see where you are. If the samples don’t line up wit

there’s unexpected variability, keep checking. They will run three tests, prefer 10 if they can get them. For continuous proaren’t going to be very variable. Written Comments Provided? No.Did they also submit to Docket? No. Date sent to EPA- CCDNone
#### William Mitchell et al., Judgment Creditors, *v.*Emil Klein, Judgment Debtor. William Mitchell et al., Respondents, *v.*The Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellant.

Appeal from an order in supplementary proceedings.

J. Charles Weschler, for appellant.

Louis Levy, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Order affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J.; MoCabthy and Hascall, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.
§ 15.160 Communications. ( a ) The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and members of the public. ( 1 ) The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to afford an individual with handicaps an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the agency. ( i ) In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with handicaps.
( ii ) The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature.
( 2 ) Where the agency communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, telecommunication devices for deaf persons (TDD's) or equally effective telecommunication systems shall be used to communicate with persons with impaired hearing.
( b ) The agency shall ensure that interested persons, including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities.
( c ) The agency shall provide signage at a primary entrance to each of its inaccessible facilities, directing users to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities. The international symbol for accessibility shall be used at each primary entrance of an accessible facility.
( d ) This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance with § 15.160 would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the agency head or his or her designee after considering all agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of the conducted program or activity and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with handicaps receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         144,750
<SECURITIES>                                   248,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                  408,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                   250,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               586,988
<PP&E>                                         264,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,001,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,036,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,200
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,047,503)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (1,001,718)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               285,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                23,471
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (262,162)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (262,162)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1








RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) CERTIFICATION (SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)











I, Andrew J. McMonigle, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2020-4 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.








Date: May 27, 2022








/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Name: Andrew J. McMonigle


Title: Vice President and Treasurer


(Senior officer in charge of securitization)


Company: CarMax Auto Funding LLC


as Depositor on behalf of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2020-4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-8000

SEAN DERON WELLS,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL M. STEVENSON, III, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (5:15-cv-01652-CMC)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Deron Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Deron Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Wells has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19848-19849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07987]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

42 CFR Part 85a

[Docket No. CDC-2014-0001; NIOSH-271]
RIN 0920-AA51

Occupational Safety and Health Investigations of Places of 
Employment

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within 
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is withdrawing a 
previously published notice of proposed rulemaking that solicited 
public comment on minor technical amendments to regulatory text.

DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published at 79 FR 2809,

[[Page 19849]]

January 16, 2014, is withdrawn, effective immediately.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Schnorr Ph.D., Director NIOSH 
Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies 
(DSHEFS); 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226; 513-841-4428 
(this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 16, 2014, HHS published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to make minor technical amendments to the 
regulatory text in 42 CFR Part 85a (79 FR 2809). On the same date, HHS 
simultaneously published a companion direct final rule (DFR) that 
offered identical updates because the agency believed that the 
revisions were non-controversial and unlikely to generate significant 
adverse comment (79 FR 2789). In the NPRM preamble, HHS stated that if 
no significant adverse comments were received by March 17, 2014, the 
NPRM would be withdrawn and the effective date of the final rule would 
be confirmed within 30 days of the conclusion of the comment period. 
HHS received one public comment that was not a significant adverse 
comment, but rather was in support of the companion NPRM. Because HHS 
did not receive any significant adverse comments to the NPRM within the 
specified comment period, we hereby withdraw this NPRM from rulemaking.

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07987 Filed 4-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```
41149.

#### NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WESTBROOK.

*138Argued February 3, 1965

Decided June 21, 1965

Rehearing denied July 22, 1965.

*Abbot & Abbot, Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, J. Walker Harper,*for plaintiff in error.

*Marshall L. Fountain,*contra.

*139Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. As against general demurrer pleadings must be construed most strongly against the pleader. *Hulsey v. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co.,*207 Ga. 167, 169 (60 SE2d 353); *Tarver v. Savannah Beach, Tybee Island,*96 Ga. App. 491, 494 (100 SE2d 616).

If the petition together with Exhibit *“A”*is so construed, the alleged “agreement” as shown by Exhibit “A” is no agreement at all but is at most a mere application for insurance. While it is doubtful whether the vague and indefinite application for insurance is sufficient to constitute an offer, yet even if it is, the consummation of the insurance contract by valid acceptance is essential to the cause of action that plaintiff attempts to allege. “Insurance is a matter of contract . . . [An insurance contract] is consummated upon the unconditional written acceptance of the application for insurance by the company to which such application is made ... So long as the application is not acted upon by the insurance company, of course, no contract has been consummated.” *Maddox v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co.,*79 Ga. App. 164, 170 (53 SE2d 235).

(We are not concerned here with the validity of an oral binder under the Georgia Insurance Code, Ga. L. 1960, pp. 289, 667, because the purported agreement to insure was made prior to January 1, 1961, the effective date of the Act).

Even if it were possible to construe the petition as showing an oral agreement to insure, that would still be insufficient to support the action, because under judicial construction of former *Code*§ 56-213 which is applicable to this case, an oral binder to insure is unenforceable. *Georgia Casualty &c. Co. v. Hardrick,*211 Ga. 709, 712 (3) (88 SE2d 394). See also: *New York Life Ins. Co. v. Babcock,*104 Ga. 67 (30 SE 273, 42 LRA 88, 69 ASR 134); *Todd v. German American Ins. Co.,*2 Ga. App. 789, 793 (1) (59 SE 94); *New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Rowell,*33 Ga. App. 552, 556 (126 SE 892).

Thus the petition here, in order to allege a cause of action, would have had to set forth a written binder, or agreement to insure, or an insurance policy in writing. As the petition failed to allege any of these things, it stated no cause of action.

*140The trial court erred in overruling defendant’s general demurrer, and all further proceedings in the case were nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*