alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
coke-ex101_11.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

OMNIBUS AMENDMENT

to

COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC.

NONQUALIFIED EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS

 

 

THIS OMNIBUS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is executed this 6th day of September, 2019, by Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

 

Statement of Purpose

 

The Company maintains the nonqualified benefit plans for eligible employees of the Company and its affiliates listed on the attached Appendix (the “Nonqualified Benefit Plans”). Effective as of January 1, 2019, the Company changed its name from Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated to Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. By written consent dated December 28, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Company directed the officers of the Company to perform all acts and deeds such officers deem necessary or advisable to reflect the corporate name change. In consideration of the directive by the Board, the Company desires to amend the Nonqualified Benefit Plans to change the name of each affected plan.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Company does hereby declare that the Nonqualified Benefit Plans are hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2019 as follows:

 

1.The legal name of each plan listed on the attached Appendix shall be changed to the new plan name as reflected in the attached Appendix, and all references in the applicable plan document to each plan name on and after January 1, 2019 shall be changed to reflect the new plan name.

 

2.Except as expressly or by necessary implication amended hereby, the Nonqualified Benefit Plans shall continue in full force and effect.




 

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on the day and year first above written to be effective as of January 1, 2019.

 


	
 
	
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ E. Beauregarde Fisher III

	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
E. Beauregarde Fisher III

	
 
	
Title:
	
 
	
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary




 




 

 



 

APPENDIX to OMNIBUS AMENDMENT FOR NONQUALIFIED PLANS

 


		
	
Plan Name Before January 1, 2019
	
New Plan Name on and after January 1, 2019

	
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Officer Retention Plan
	
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. Officer Retention Plan

	
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Long Term Retention Plan
	
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. Long Term Retention Plan

	
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Director Deferral Plan
	
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. Director Deferral Plan

	
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Supplemental Savings Incentive Plan
	
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. Supplemental Savings Incentive Plan

	
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Amended and Restated Long-Term Performance Plan
	
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. Amended and Restated Long-Term Performance Plan

	
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Amended and Restated Annual Bonus Plan
	
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. Amended and Restated Annual Bonus Plan

	
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Long-Term Equity Performance Plan
	
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. Long-Term Equity Performance Plan
**Exhibit 13.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of British Energy Group plc, (the “Company”) for the annual period ended March 31, 2005(the “Periodic Report”), I, William Coley, Chief Executive of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge thePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date:July 28, 2005 

 

----
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alaska Airlines, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley D. Tilden,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

      (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.

By /s/ Bradley D. Tilden
________________________
Bradley D. Tilden
Chief Financial Officer
May 6, 2005
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB   Document 106-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2023   Page 1 of 1
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS

4702 LEVADA TERRACE

ROCKVILLE, MD 20853

______

TELEPHONE: (301) 728 - 5908

FACSIMILE: (240) 681 - 2189

KEL MCCLANAHAN, ESQ., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (admitted in NY, DC)

EMAIL: KEL@NATIONALSECURITYLAW.ORG

BRADLEY P. MOSS, ESQ., DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (admitted in IL, DC)

EMAIL: BRAD@NATIONALSECURITYLAW.ORG

29 August 2022

The Honorable Aileen Cannon

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Paul G. Rogers Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse

701 Clematis Street

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Re: Potential Special Masters, Case No. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON

Dear Judge Cannon:

In light of the news that you may choose to appoint a Special Master in the above-captioned case 

to address any potential issues of Executive Privilege, I write to respectfully bring four uniquely 

qualified experts in the field to your attention for your consideration. We are not advocating for 

or against the appointment of a Special Master and take no position on that question; we simply 

wish to let you know of their existence and expertise in this exceedingly esoteric corner of the 

law. Each of the below individuals—listed in alphabetical order and with only a current title to 

avoid any suggestion of ranking—is willing to serve as a Special Master should you request it, 

and they are all willing to fully abide by the terms of the appointment.

• Heidi Kitrosser, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of

Law

• Mark J. Rozell, Dean, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason 

University

• Jonathan Shaub, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Kentucky Rosenberg 

College of Law

• Mitchel A. Sollenberger, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, University of 

Michigan-Dearborn

I have also attached a curriculum vitae for each person and a copy of an amici curiae brief I 

submitted on their behalf to the U.S. Supreme Court in a previous case involving former 

President Trump’s claims of Executive Privilege. It is this last fact—that these scholars have 

already accumulated and applied specific expertise and knowledge regarding issues surrounding 

a former President’s claims of Executive Privilege in comparable circumstances—that we 

believe uniquely qualifies any of these individuals to ably serve you as a Special Master, should 

you choose to appoint one.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 35-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 1 of 2
I remain at your disposal should you choose to discuss any of this in greater detail.

Sincerely,

Kel McClanahan

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 35-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 3022.50 Remedies. ( a ) If the Commission finds that a complaint is justified, it will order that the Postal Service take such action as the Commission determines appropriate to: ( 1 ) Achieve compliance with the applicable requirements; and
( 2 ) Remedy the effects of any non-compliance.
( b ) If the Commission finds deliberate non-compliance on the part of the Postal Service, the Commission may order, based on the nature, circumstances, extent, and seriousness of the non-compliance, a fine for each incidence of non-compliance.
( c ) In any case where the Commission is considering the extraordinary relief described in paragraph (b) of this section, the Commission will provide notice to the participants that such relief is being considered. It will allow the participants a reasonable opportunity to comment and present aggravating and mitigating factors for its consideration.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5033 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5033

To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that contain in a 
   single document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other 
contract provisions and to prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to 
a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering 
                 into a homebuilding purchase contract.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2000

 Mr. Gonzalez (for himself and Mr. Rodriguez) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that contain in a 
   single document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other 
contract provisions and to prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to 
a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering 
                 into a homebuilding purchase contract.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Homebuyers Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--No person engaged in the construction of new 
houses may require a purchaser to enter into a mandatory arbitration 
agreement as a condition precedent to entering into a contract for the 
purchase of a new house.
    (b) Separate Documents Required.--No person engaged in the 
construction of new houses may offer a purchaser a contract for the 
purchase of a new house which includes an agreement on mandatory 
arbitration unless such agreement is a separate document which contains 
only language pertaining to the mandatory arbitration agreement. The 
separate document containing the mandatory arbitration agreement shall 
also contain the following statement: ``By Agreeing to Binding 
Arbitration You Are Giving Up Your Right To Go To Court''.
    (c) Arbitrator.--The mandatory arbitration agreement shall not name 
an independent arbitrator and shall contain a procedure that adequately 
guarantees the purchaser an opportunity to participate in the selection 
of an arbitrator which shall occur only after a dispute regarding the 
homebuilding contract has arisen.
    (d) Enforcement.--If any person violates subsection (a), (b), or 
(c), the agreement on mandatory arbitration will be of no effect.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-20507-CR-SEITZ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Vs.

LUIS ENRIQUE RENDON CARDENAS

________________________________________/

NOTICE OF SENTENCING DATE

TO: DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

By direction of the Honorable PATRICIA A. SEITZ, United States District Judge, YOU ARE 

HEREBY ORDERED to appear in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on

February 16, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. for imposition of sentence. On that date, report to the U.S. District 

Courthouse, Courtroom 11-4, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128-1810, where sentence will be 

imposed. You will receive no further notice.

If the above-named defendant has executed a bond with this Court, let this notice advise the 

defendant that failure to appear as directed herein could result in his/her being charged with a violation of 

the Comprehensive Crime Control Act (18 U.S.C. Sec.3146), which carries a maximum sentence of up to 

ten (10) years imprisonment and a fine of $25,000, or both, if convicted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Pre-sentence Investigation and Report to this Court will be 

completed. DEFENSE COUNSEL IS TO REPORT THIS DATE TO THE UNITED STATES 

PROBATION OFFICE OF THE COURT FOR INTERVIEW AND FURTHER INSTRUCTION TO 

THE 9TH FLOOR OF THE COURTHOUSE. IF ON BOND, THE DEFENDANT SHALL REPORT TO 

THE PROBATION OFFICE ALSO.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Attorney’s Office immediately provide the U.S. 

Probation Department the necessary information to prepare the Prosecution of the Pre-sentence Report.

Angela Noble, Clerk of Court

By: Ivan Marchena

Courtroom Deputy Clerk

DATE: 12/7/2022

AUSA: Philip Toomajian

COUNSEL: Eduardo Pereira, Esq.

GUILTY PLEA: X BOND: X

TRIAL: USM/FEDERAL CUSTODY: 

TO COUNT (S): 1

Case 1:22-cr-20507-PAS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/07/2022 Page 1 of 1
§ 3010.201 Initiation of a proceeding. ( a ) The Commission may on its own motion initiate a proceeding under this subpart by issuing a notice and order initiating proceeding pursuant to § 3010.151.
( b ) ( 1 ) Any person may request the initiation of a proceeding under this subpart by filing a petition with the Commission pursuant to the filing requirements of subpart B of this part. The petition shall: ( i ) Provide the name, address, phone number and other pertinent contact information of the requesting person;
( ii ) Identify the subject matter of the petition;
( iii ) Provide specific proposals, including specific language, in regard to the subject matter of the petition;
( iv ) Provide all facts, views, arguments, and data deemed to support the action requested; and
( v ) Describe the impact of the proposal on the person filing the petition, the Postal Service, the mailing community, and the Commission, as applicable.
( 2 ) Upon consideration of the petition, the Commission in its discretion may initiate a proceeding under this subpart by issuing a notice and order initiating proceeding pursuant to § 3010.151, reject the petition, or defer a decision whether to grant or reject the petition. The Commission shall provide an explanation for the rejection or delay in consideration of any petition.
( c ) Subparts A, B, C, and D of this part apply to the initiation and conduct of proceedings under this subpart E.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of CECO Environmental Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis W. Blazer, V.P.  Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dennis W. Blazer                                         
|Dennis W. Blazer                                             
|V.P.  Finance and Administration and Chief
Financial Officer
|August 10, 2007                                              

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

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  CBCA ADR Processes

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/CBCA ADR Processes CBCA ADR ProcessesADR2022-02-18T15:42:02-05:00
			
			CBCA ADR ProcessesThe types of ADR techniques used at the CBCA can be found at CBCA Rule 54(c). The typical types of ADR include:
Facilitative mediation
Evaluative mediation
Early neutral evaluation
Mini-trial
Non-binding advisory opinion
Summary binding decision, and
Hybrids of these proceduresThe ADR process that is used most at the CBCA is non-binding evaluative mediation, although it goes by other names, such as neutral evaluation.  Under this process, before the ADR proceeding, the parties will typically submit to the judge confidential position papers (or exchange position papers) addressing the facts and disputed issues, as well as their positions.  They then meet with the judge in a joint session and make informal presentations to each other and the judge.  **Each party must be represented by someone with authority to settle the dispute**.  The judge, acting as a third-party neutral, meets both together and privately with the parties to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each side and help identify settlement options.  Depending on the request of the parties the judge may, in a joint or private session, provide his/her evaluation on the merits of a party’s position.
Parties considering ADR proceedings are encouraged to adapt for their own purposes any provisions in of the Board’s rules which they believe will be useful. Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-35756 of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 and inRegistration Statement No. 333-101957 of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 16, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. andmanagement’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

 

Orlando, Florida

March 16, 2005
Martin. Michael (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Merle Sensenig <mds@emypeople.net> 

Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:32 PM 

EAS (OST) 

Silver Airways service to AOO \- h o 

To whom it may concern: 

I read with interest the article of the possible takeover of Silver Airways of the service to AOO. My comment on the issue 

would be to put a vote in for service to be provided to Baltimore (BWI) rather than to Washington Dulles. With Colgan 

providing service under United, it was logical to use the United hub of Dulles for connections. With an airline like Silver 

providing independent feeder service, the arrival city at a hub is not as important. We live in Martinsburg and most times 

that we have flown, we have driven to BWI. Baltimore is preferred by us (except the length of drive to get there!) for the 

lower fares often found there because of the more competitive service there. Baltimore is full of Southwest and AirTran 

and other carries like JetBlue that help to keep its prices better. Dulles is better for international connections, but I think 

BWI would be better for domestic connections. (AirTran quits service to Dulles in June.) If Silver provided service to BWI, 

it would increase my chances of using it, of course with consideration of the price. 

Thanks for reading. 

Merle Sensenig 

Martinsburg, PA 

(814)793-4606
#### Marguerite NARDINI, Appellant, v. James B. GILBERT, Appellee.

No. 7695.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 17, 1958.

Decided Oct. 21, 1958.

*178George A. Fath, Alexandria, Va., for appellant.

James H. Simmonds, Arlington, Va., for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and BARKSDALE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the District Judge’s direction of a verdict for the defendant in a malpractice case brought by the plaintiff against a surgeon.

The plaintiff was suffering from a painful and swollen knee, and after consulting the defendant and undergoing certain treatments which proved ineffective, she entered the hospital for surgery by the defendant. The doctor had made a tentative diagnosis of the ailment as a torn medial meniscus, but testified that he was desirous of performing an exploratory operation to examine the inner knee and both medial and lateral menisci. The operation was performed by entry from the lateral, instead of the medial, side of the knee. The anterior portion of the medial meniscus was removed in the course of the operation, and upon examination it was found there was a tear in the removed portion. For a time after the operation the plaintiff suffered from what appeared to be an infection, and now has some restricted motion in the knee.

Surgeons called by the plaintiff testified that the customary approach in operating for a torn medial meniscus would be from the medial side and that they would not have operated from the lateral side. While it is clear that his approach to the medial meniscus, if it were known with definiteness that the fault lay there, was not the usual approach, the surgeon was, nevertheless, able to remove the torn portion of the medial meniscus, and none of the experts was prepared to say that his procedure was improper or that it was negligent of him not to remove the rest of the meniscus. The procedure was not of a character that a layman could judge to be negligent in the absence of expert testimony.

As the District Judge said,

> “ * * * The evidence in this case did not in any phase of it show that the defendant doctor had failed to exercise that decree of care or skill that is exercised, or possessed by physicians or surgeons in the same line of speciality of the defendant and practicing in his community. None of the testimony, either lay or expert for the plaintiff, said that the method of procedure, either in technique or in knowledge adopted and followed by the defendant was deficient in any respect. No doctor or no surgeon, no expert testified that he had proceeded negligently and none of them even went so far as to say that it was not proper in every respect. The most they *179said was that they may not have proceeded that way. They may not have followed that approach, but none of them condemned it and none of them would say that it showed a lack of expertise. * * * ”

Affirmed.