alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1





AMENDMENT TO


STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS


[D. Nielsen]





This Amendment to Stock Option Agreements (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of October 3, 2016, by and between CommunityOne Bancorp, a North Carolina corporation (the “Company) and David L. Nielsen (the “Participant”).





WHEREAS,  the Company and the Participant are parties to a Stock Option Agreement dated October 1, 2014 and a Stock Option Agreement dated July 31, 2015 (the “October 11, 2014 Option Agreement” and the “July 31, 2015 Option Agreement”, respectively);





WHEREAS, the Company is party to an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between Capital Bank Financial Corp. and the Company, dated as of November 22, 2015 (the “Merger Agreement”);


WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant desire to amend the October 1, 2014 Option Agreement and the July 31, 2015 Option Agreement to provide that to the extent that the Options (as defined under such agreements) covered by such agreements are unvested as of immediately prior to the Effective Time, the term of such unvested Options shall expire and terminate immediately prior to the Effective Time (to the extent not previously forfeited);


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which the parties acknowledge, the Company and the Participant agree as follows:


1.  Each of the October 1, 2014 Option Agreement and the July 31, 2015 Option Agreement is hereby amended to add the following at the end of Section 1(d):


Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, to the extent that any of the Options are unvested as of immediately prior to the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement), the term of such Options shall expire and terminate immediately prior to the Effective Time (to the extent such Options are not  previously forfeited).  “Merger Agreement” means the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between Capital Bank Financial Corp. and the Company, dated as of November 22, 2015.


2.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.








COMMUNITYONE BANCORP    PARTICIPANT:





By:  ___ /s/     Robert L. Reid  _____                       ___ /s/  David L. Nielsen  _____





Title: _ President & CEO ________    Date: _____ 10/3/2016 ______





Date: _ 10/3/2016 ______________











1
#### DITSON *v.*CALIFORNIA.

No. 729, Misc.

Decided January 14, 1963.

*Hugh R. Manes*for petitioner.

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. In view of the suggestion of mootness by reason of the execution of the petitioner, the judgment of the Supreme Court of California is vacated and the cause is remanded for such proceedings as that court may deem appropriate.

[Note: Upon petition by the State for rehearing or clarification, the above opinion was withdrawn and, upon the prior suggestion of mootness, the petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed. 372 U. S. 933.]
From: falcon_370f@excite.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:18:29 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as Ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Travis Brewer

Boise, ID 83704
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GFSI
HOLDINGS, INC. FORM 10-Q AS OF JANUARY 2, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1998
<CASH>                                             622
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                       636
<INVENTORY>                                     33,861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,123
<PP&E>                                          35,906
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,333
<BONDS>                                        234,387
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,198
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (167,446)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,163
<SALES>                                        116,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,903
<CGS>                                           66,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    17
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,380
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,079
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,301
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    203
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: cheryl.ferguson@sechristian.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Ferguson

Parker, CO 80134
No. 23, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Will Wilson,*Attorney General of Texas, and *Sam R. Wilson, Linward Shivers*and *Charles R. Lind,*Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

#### Johnson *v.*Texas.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Certiorari denied.
From: Mary Williams

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Health

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:03:41 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.”

These preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide

countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even

though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption

would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
No. 135.

#### Esso Standard Oil Co. *v.*Fall, Administratrix.

*Walter X. Connor*and *Louis Kurz, Jr.*for petitioner.

*William M. Alper*for respondent.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Sarah R. Cross, Respondent, *v.*Christian D. Bedrosian, Appellant.

(Submitted March 10, 1913;

decided March 18, 1913.)

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 207 N. Y. 711.)
From: lyodarle@jetbroadband.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Darlene Lyons

, 24550-2190
From: t-dvandyk@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:34:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Deborah VanDyk

Hudsonville, MI 49426
No. 535.

#### Dennis *v.*Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.

*Calvin W. Rawlings, Harold E. Wallace, Brigham E. Roberts*and *Wayne L. Black*for petitioner.

*Dennis McCarthy*for respondent.

Supreme Court of Utah. Certiorari granted.
From: arandroshick@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

amy androshick

Woodruff, SC 29388
From: loupeters@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:31:15 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Please rescend the mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private

health insurance with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand

conscience protections for any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral

or religious objections. I strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans

especially for drugs and devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as

ella and Plan B).

Please also ask you to reconsider the definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection toproviding such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

I again urge you in the strongest way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and

sterilizations from the list of mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

lou peters

San Antonio, TX 78230
From: whartman4@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:28:31 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Wanda Hartman

Glen Burnie, MD 21060
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7098** 

APRIL STUCKERS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. UNNAMED RESPONDENT , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- hc

- 02193

- F )

Submitted : November 29, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. April Stuckers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: April Stuckers seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealabl e unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. 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. McDanie l , 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 Stuckers has not made the requisite show ing. Accordingly, we deny her motions for a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D