alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE 

MATTEL CASH BALANCE EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Fisher-Price, Inc. (“Fisher-Price”) maintains the Mattel Cash Balance Excess Benefit Plan, as amended and restated effective as of July 1, 2012 (the
“Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to 7 of the Plan, Fisher-Price, by action of its Board of Directors (the
“Board”), or a designated officer through authority delegated by such Board, has the right at any time to amend the Plan in any respect, provided, that no such amendment shall reduce the benefits payable under the Plan below
the benefits to which any person would have been entitled under the Plan at the time of such amendment; and 
 WHEREAS,
The Board of Fisher-Price desires to amend the Plan to cause certain amounts payable under the Plan to be subject to the Mattel, Inc. Compensation Recovery Policy. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 7 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of August 29, 2013, as follows: 

1. A new Section 13 shall be added as follows: 
  

	 	“13.	Compensation Recovery Policy. Notwithstanding any provision in this Plan to the contrary, amounts paid or payable under this Plan shall be subject to the terms
and conditions of the Mattel, Inc. Compensation Recovery Policy, as may be amended from time to time (the “Compensation Recovery Policy”), to the extent applicable (including by reason of such amounts being calculated or determined
by reference to an underlying amount or payment that is subject to the Compensation Recovery Policy).” 

 2.
Affected Participant Consent. This Amendment No. 1 is subject to the consent of each Plan participant who is subject to the Compensation Recovery Policy and participates in the Plan as of August 29, 2013 (each, an “Affected
Participant”). To the extent that any such Affected Participant does not consent to this Amendment No. 1, the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall not apply to such Affected Participant. 

3. Ratification and Confirmation. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects
and remains in full force and effect. 
 4. Headings. Section headings are for convenience only and shall not be
considered a part of this Amendment No. 1. 
 * * * * * 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fisher-Price has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed, effective as of August 29, 2013. 

 

			
	FISHER-PRICE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert Normile
	Name:	 	Robert Normile
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President and Secretary
		
	Dated:	 	October 21, 2013
```

[109th Congress Public Law 51]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ051.109]

[[Page 119 STAT. 460]]

Public Law 109-51
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, Oklahoma, as the ``Boone Pickens Post 
              Office''. <<NOTE: Aug. 2, 2005 -  [S. 775]>> 

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

SECTION 1. BOONE PICKENS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, Oklahoma, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Boone Pickens Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Boone 
Pickens Post Office''.

    Approved August 2, 2005.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 775:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):
            June 29, considered and passed Senate.
            July 25, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Elisio Maldonado, Jr.

, * From the 106 th District Court

of Dawson County

Trial Court No. 12

- 7157

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 243

- CR * March 12 , 20 20

The Sta te of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
## Docket Number: FAA **- 2013**  **- 0088** 
**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  10/20/11 **Regional Airline Association** 10/20/11 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  10/20/11 **ATA Joe White**  10/20/11
Docket: IRS-2009-0008 

Request for Information for Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 

2008 

Comment On: IRS-2009-0008-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: IRS-2009-0008-0112 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Jane S. Price 

Address: 

Greenville, SC, 

Submitter's Representative: Bob Inglis 

General Comment 

I am a Licensed Professional Counselor in Greenville, SC, providing neurofeedback 

treatment to individuals with Attention Deficit Disorder, Anxiety, PTSD, and Panic 

Disorder. The clients I have treated have successfully eliminated symptoms related to 

the above disorders. Neurofeedback is an empirically validated and widely recognized 

effective non-medication treatment for ADHD, as well as other conditions. There are 

over 50 studies evaluating the effectiveness of neurofeedback in the treatment of 

ADHD, substance abuse disorders, and autism. A recent review of this literature 

concluded that "Neurofeedback meets the American Academy of Child nad Adolescent 

Psychiatry criteria for Clinical Guidelines for treatment of ADHD." This means that 

aneurofeedback meets the same criteria as medication for treating ADHD, of which 

60% of prescriptions are in fact prescribed "off label", and that neurofeedback "should 

always be considered as an intervention for this dosorder by the clinician." This 

service has been denied by Georgia Medicaid, Aetna, United Behavioral Health, Blue 

Cross, Cigna, and Amerigroup., 

This is limitation of an effective and validated treatment for a mental health problem. 

The money for on-going pharmaceutical treatments could be better served for shorter 

term treatment that Neurofeedback provides. 

Economic good sense not withstanding, We believe that the parity regulations, based 

on legal reviews of the parity statute should require that employers and plans pay for 

the same range and scope of services for behavioral treatments as they do for medical 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 29, 2009 

Tracking No. 809bcdc5 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009
surgical benefits and that a plan cannot be more restrictive in their managed care 

criteria and reviews for mental health and substance abuse disorders when compared 

to medical surgery. There are many routine medical and surgical procedures whih 

have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than does neurofeedback. Today 

plans are being more restrictive in how they review evidenced-based mental health snd 

Substance Abuse Treatments when compared to medical surgical treatments. This 

violates both the intent and letter of the parity statute and we hope that the regulations 

will clarify that this can't continue. 

Jane Price, LPC, BCIA
-----Original Message----- 

From: graymond@juno.com [mailto:graymond@juno.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:12 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

George Raymond 

277 E Stevens Rd Unit 10 

Palm Springs, CA 92262
-----Original Message----- 

From: rainjeys@yahoo.com [mailto:rainjeys@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:27 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 29, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Julia Wellman 

2-203 Mitchell CT 

Wheatland, PA 17331
From: enasper@aol.com [mailto:enasper@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:36 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Ellen Nasper 

7 Burns Street 

New Haven, CT 06511
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0241 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-9629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Alan J Strohmayer 

Address: 

550 Mamaroneck Ave 

Harrison, NY, 10528 

Email: alanjs99@yahoo.com 

Phone: 914-381-3409 

General Comment 

Comments regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

page 19157, II B specific areas 1 and 4 

re; CMS-4140_-NC 

I am a clinician who provides mental health treatment to individuals with 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disorders. 

I believe that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity 

statue should require that employers and plans pay for the same range and 

scope of services for Behavioral Treatments as they do for Med Surg benefits and 

that a plan cannot be more restrictive in their managed care criteria and 

reviews for MH and SA disorders when compared to Med Surg. Today plans are being 

more restrictive in how they review evidenced based Mental Health and Substance 

Abuse Treatments when compared to Med Surg treatments. This violates both the 

intent and letter of the parity statute and we hope that the regulations will 

clarify that this can't continue. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 28, 2009 

Received: May 28, 2009 

Status: DoNotPost 

Tracking No. 809bc676 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009

Submission Type: Web
Thank you very much, 

Alan J. Strohmayer, Ph.D.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

 

(1) The accompanying Quarterly Reporton Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theaccompanying Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date: March 17, 2005

 

 
| /s/ Joseph C. Christenson |   |                    | /s/ Timothy C. Clayton |   |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Joseph C. Christenson     |   | Timothy C. Clayton      |
| President                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### John S. Perry, *Respondent, v.*The Board of Missions of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Albany, *Appellant.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
#### § 229.33 Out-of-use credit.

When a locomotive is out of use for 30 or more consecutive days or is out of use when it is due for any test or inspection required by § 229.23, § 229.25, § 229.27, § 229.29, or § 229.31, an out-of-use notation showing the number of out-of-use days shall be made on an inspection line on Form FRA F 6180-49A. A supervisory employee of the carrier who is responsible for the locomotive shall attest to the notation. If the locomotive is out of use for one or more periods of at least 30 consecutive days each, the interval prescribed for any test or inspection under this part may be extended by the number of days in each period the locomotive is out of use since the last test or inspection in question. A movement made in accordance with § 229.9 is not a use for purposes of determining the period of the out-of-use credit.
Appendix 6

Acute Impacts Refined Analysis FiguresRefined Acute Modeling Approach

Initial acute screening risk calculations we re performed with the HEM-3 model. HEM-3

estimates acute (1-hour) impacts at both polar and census block receptors. It is assumed for this

short period of time that an exposed individual could be located at a ny off-site location. The lack

of readily available detailed property boundary information for ma ny of the facilities evaluated

made it difficult to determine whether receptors we re on- or off-site. In the absence of such

information, the first ring of polar receptors was placed 100 meters from the plant center for

many facilities. However, these polar rings often transected on-s ite locations, restricting public

access to exposures at these levels and thereby overestimating exposures.

The screening approach used by HEM-3 to estimate maximum 1-hour exposures also

likely overestimates. To estimate maximum 1-h our concentrations at each receptor, HEM-3

sums the maximum concentrations attributed to each source, regardless of whether those

maximum concentrations occurred during the same hour. In other words, HEM-3 assumes that

the maximum impact from each source at each recep tor occurs at the same time. In actuality,

maximum impacts from different sources may occur at different times.

This appendix addresses refinements to determine the maximum offsite values by

plotting the HEM-3 polar grid resu lts on aerial photographs of the facilities. These photographs

were examined to determine off-site loca tions that may be accessible to the public ( e.g.,

roadways and public buildings.). The attached figures present the estimated hazard quotient

values (the modeled 1-hour c oncentration of a pollutant divided by its short-term health

benchmark) at the polar recep tors near the facilities.SecondaryLead Smeltingg•All figures represent HQ values based on the REL forAllfiguresrepresentHQvaluesbasedontheRELforarsenicFigure 1 – NEI38394 ArsenicFigure 2 – NEILAT$10672 ArsenicFigure 3 – NEIMO0930005 Arsenic
#### § 236.824 System, automatic block signal.

A block signal system wherein the use of each block is governed by an automatic block signal, cab signal, or both.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Feb-28-1997
<CASH>                        1,433,294
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLE>                  4,024,889
<ALLOWANCES>                  2,350,789
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              49,827
<PP&E>                        10,509,852
<DEPRECIATION>                2,303,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                21,039,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         435,276
<BONDS>                       000
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    20,603,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  21,039,193
<SALES>                       667,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              897,697
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 321,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              103,847
<LOSS-PROVISION>              205,613
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            000
<INCOME-PRETAX>               267,019
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           267,019
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     000
<NET-INCOME>                  267,019
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 2.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                 2.61
        

</TABLE>
From: Brian Lombardo [mailto:blombardo@gfainvestments.com] 

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 11:54 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: 1210-AB32 Letter

Dear DOL

I understand that 1210-AB32 is being considered.

I request the following considerations:

• There should be a uniform standard of care for a fiduciary standard that is consistent for all 

professionals providing investment advice

• Any regulation in this area should make it easier (not harder) for investors to receive high 

quality investment advice

• Improved disclosures should be the focus of any regulation changes since better informed 

investors are better able to make their own decisions

• Please don’t restructure the existing securities, insurance and banking industries. The existing 

regulations already work effectively and the costs for any firm to deal with large changes to 

regulations would ultimately impact the consumers adversely.

• The “legal list” currently proposed should be removed from consideration as it would hurt the 

ability of advisors to help consumers with their needs

• The Fiduciary standard should be deemed to exist at point of sale and not at first contact.

Thank you for your consideration.

Brian Lombardo, CFP®, CPA

CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER TM

Gateway Financial Advisors

Cambridge Investment Research

Phone: (408) 728-4350

Fax: (408) 728-4360

Email: blombardo@gfainvestments.com

www.brianlombardo.com

2570 North First St., Suite 200

San Jose, CA 95131-1037

Confidential, please delete if you received this in error.

Securities offered through Registered Representatives of Cambridge Investment Research, Inc., a Broker/Dealer, Member 

FINRA/SIPC. Advisory services offered through Cambridge Investment Research Advisors, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor. 

Gateway Financial Advisors, Inc., and Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. are not affiliated.

The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee and 

have received this email in error, please reply to sender to inform them of this fact.

We cannot accept trade orders through e-mail. 

If I cannot be reached, and you have an urgent matter related to your account, you may call one of my assistants, LaCharde 

Walker or Stephanie Vargas, at (408) 728-4350 or the Gateway home office at (925) 999-8699 for assistance.
**Exhibit 99.2**
**CFO CERTIFICATION**
         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Derek J. Kerr, the Chief Financial Officer ofAmerica West Holdings Corporation (the ***“Company”***), hereby certifies that, tothe best of his knowledge:
**1.     **     The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2002, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.2 (the***“Periodic Report”***) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) orsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
**2.     **     The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
         **In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 17thday of October, 2002.         /s/ Derek J. Kerr
§ 172.422 SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTIBLE label. ( a ) Except for size and color, the SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTIBLE label must be as follows:
( b ) In addition to complying with § 172.407, the background color on the lower half of the SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTIBLE label must be red and the upper half must be white.
[Amdt. 172-123, 56 FR 66257, Dec. 20, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 45458, Oct. 1, 1992]
Submitted on briefs September 18,

affirmed September 25, 1917,

rehearing denied January 15, 1918.

#### SMITH v. ROBINSON.

*(167*Pac. *569.)*

Trial—Direction of Verdict—Uncontradicted. Evidence.

1. In an attorney’s action for compensation, where there was no counterclaim and no dispute in material testimony, and there could reasonably be no difference of opinion as to inferences deducible from the evidence, a directed verdict was proper,

[As to what is deemed to be invasion by the court of the jury’s province, see note in *14*Am. St. Rep. 36.]

Prom Josephine: Prank M. Calkins, Judge.

This action to recover money for services as attorney was commenced by Robert G. Smith against Emma G. Robinson. The trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and from the judgment rendered thereon, defendant appealed. Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Supreme Court Rule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi).

Affirmed.

Por appellant there was a brief over the name of *Messrs. Crawford & Crawford.*

Por respondent there was a brief over the name of *Mr. Asa C. Hough.*

In Banc.

Mr. Justice Bean

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action for money commenced in a Justice’s Court in Josephine County. The cause was appealed to the Circuit Court. Judgment went for the plaintiff in both courts and the defendant appeals.

The complaint alleges that between January 1, 1910, and July 1, 1910, plaintiff performed services for the *101defendant as an attorney at law of the reasonable value of $100, no part of which has been paid.

The defendant filed an answer denying each and every allegation thereof and denying that said alleged services were worth any sum whatever to her. The cause was tried before the court and jury. Evidence was introduced by plaintiff and several witnesses to the effect that the services were performed as alleged and were reasonably worth from $100 to $250; that while the case in which the services were rendered by the attorney was decided adversely to Miss Eobinson by the trial court, on appeal to this court she won the case upon the question presented and the record made by the plaintiff as her attorney. In opposition to this evidence defendant testified as follows:

> “I admit that he rendered me services of one hundred dollars. On the other hand I claim that really he owes me damages for not having this receiver dismissed.”

At the close of the ease the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

We have carefully read all the testimony and find none that disputes or refutes the evidence of plaintiff so as to raise any issue to be submitted to the jury. The answer consists of a general denial. There is no counterclaim pleaded; there is no dispute in the testimony as to the material facts; and there can reasonably be no difference of opinion as to the inferences and conclusions deducible from the evidence so as to require the jury to pass upon the same. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. Eehearing Denied.