alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 IDI,
INC. 
 2015 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

WHEREAS, Cogint, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) currently maintains and sponsors the IDI, Inc. 2015 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, Section 14(k) of the Plan provides that the Board of the Directors of the
Company (“Board”) may amend the Plan from time to time; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board has determined it to be in its best
interests to amend the Plan as set forth herein; and 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective upon the Company’s Stockholders’ approval
as set forth in Section 14(k) of the Plan, the following amendment to the Plan is hereby adopted: 
 1. The last sentence of
Section 5(a) of the Plan shall be amended and restated to read as follows: 
 “The total number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued
pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan shall be 13,500,000. 
 2. Section 5(b) of the Plan shall be amended and restated to read as
follows: 
 “Certain Limitations on Specific Types of Awards. The granting of Awards under this Plan shall be subject to the following
limitations: 
 (i) With respect to the shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Section, a maximum of 13,500,000 of such shares may
be subject to grants of Incentive Stock Options; 
 (ii) With respect to the shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Section, a
maximum of 13,500,000 of such shares may be issued in connection with Awards, other than Stock Options and Stock Appreciation Rights, that are settled in Common Stock; 

(iii) With respect to the shares of Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Section, a maximum of 13,500,000 of such shares may be subject to
grants of Options or Stock Appreciation Rights to any one Eligible Individual during any one fiscal year; 
 (iv) With respect to the shares
of Common Stock issuable pursuant to this Section, a maximum of 13,500,000 of such shares may be subject to grants of Performance Shares, Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units and Awards of Common Stock to any one Eligible Individual during any
one fiscal year; and 
 (v) The maximum value at Grant Date of grants of Performance Units which may be granted to any one Eligible
Individual during any one fiscal year shall be $1,000,000.” 
 3. Except as modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions
of the Plan shall remain valid and in full force and effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, has
executed this instrument as of the 8th day of January 2018, on behalf of the Company. 
  

			
	COGINT, INC.


 
			
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Daniel MacLachlan





			
	Name:	 	Daniel MacLachlan


 
			
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD A. KIRKHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH CHALVERUS, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1704-JCC-MAT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff has presented to this Court for filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, and an application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. Plaintiff alleges in his

complaint that the attorney who is acting as standby counsel for purposes of plaintiff’s state court

criminal proceedings has denied plaintiff access to the courts, has lied to plaintiff and mislead him,

and has frustrated plaintiff’s efforts to prepare a defense. Plaintiff names as defendants in this

action Joseph Chalverus, Attorney at Law, and the Law Office of Joseph Chalverus. Plaintiff

seeks compensatory damages for Mr. Chalverus’ allegedly unconstitutional conduct.

In order to sustain a civil rights action, a plaintiff must show (1) that he suffered a violation

of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2) that the violation was

Case 2:05-cv-01704-JCC Document 5 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

proximately caused by a person acting under color of state or federal law. See Crumpton v. Gates,

947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). Neither private attorneys nor public defenders are

considered state actors for purposes of bringing suit under § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson,

454 U.S. 312 (1981)(a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a

lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding). Because Mr.

Chalverus is a private attorney, plaintiff may not maintain an action against him or his law firm

under § 1983.

As it appears from the face of the complaint that the defendants named in this action are

not subject to suit under § 1983, this Court recommends that plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis be denied and this action be terminated. A proposed Order accompanies this

Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 20th day of October , 2005.

A 

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01704-JCC Document 5 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2
From: turner.karren28@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:29:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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).

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.

It is your job to 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.

Reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory preventive

services.

Sincerely,

Karren Turner

Middletown, PA 17057
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 67

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas knowledge of our heritage is critical to understanding and meeting the challenges of today and developing

a vision for our future;

Whereas the recognition of historic contributions of women to

civilization is woefully lacking and such contributions are

misunderstood in our Nation’s cultural and historical

landscape;

Whereas the Foundation for Women’s Resources has announced the creation of The Women’s Museum: An Institute for the Future (in this resolution referred to as the

‘‘Museum’’), a state-of-the-art, interactive museum that

will—

(1) profile the specific achievements of individual

women throughout history;

(2) explore the experiences of women in our civilization; and

(3) celebrate the role of women in culture, commerce, politics, art, music, and the sciences;

Whereas the Museum will both honor the past contributions

of women in history as well as the future role of women

in our society;
2

SCON 67 ES

Whereas the Museum will be housed in the restored State

Fair Coliseum in Dallas, Texas, and designed by architect Wendy Evans Joseph, senior designer for the United

States Holocaust Memorial Museum;

Whereas the Museum has been widely supported by numerous

women’s organizations, local governments, corporations,

and individuals;

Whereas the Museum is scheduled to open in the year 2000,

the first time as a Nation we have witnessed the turn of

a millennium; and

Whereas the turn of the millennium will be commemorated by

government institutions and agencies with special

projects and events all over our country: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress—

3 (1) that the past, present, and future contribu4 tions of women to culture, commerce, politics, art,

5 music, and the sciences should be recognized and

6 celebrated;

7 (2) that The Women’s Museum: An Institute

8 for the Future, in Dallas, Texas, should be des9 ignated as a millennium project for the United

10 States; and

11 (3) that Federal agencies and other Federal in12 stitutions should support the establishment and op13 eration of The Women’s Museum: An Institute for

14 the Future by—
3

SCON 67 ES

1 (A) providing construction and operational

2 support;

3 (B) supporting a ground-breaking cere4 mony for the museum; and

5 (C) supporting the museum and its objec6 tives in all other respects.

Passed the Senate November 9, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 67

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the museum

a millennium project for the United States.the Future’’, in Dallas, Texas, be designated asentitled ‘‘The Women’s Museum: An Institute for
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                1,453,901
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                       199,942,128
<ALLOWANCES>                          6,563,000
<INVENTORY>                           1,330,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    180,211,417
<PP&E>                                2,739,629
<DEPRECIATION>                        1,132,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      199,380,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               146,358,070
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                             22,494,441
<OTHER-SE>                           23,878,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        199,380,823
<SALES>                              97,720,358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    101,528,948
<CGS>                                92,361,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        92,361,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      2,044,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      1,826,645
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,503,643
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       3,792,785
<INCOME-TAX>                          1,363,347
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   2,429,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                          2,429,438        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .45

        

</TABLE>
Exhibit








UNIFIRST CORPORATION
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED 
2010 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN


In accordance with the provisions of the UniFirst Corporation Amended and Restated 2010 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 15(b) is hereby amended and restated as follows:




“(b)    Payment in Stock.  Subject to approval by the Administrator, a grantee may elect to have the Company’s required tax withholding obligation satisfied, in whole or in part, by authorizing the Company to withhold from shares of Stock to be issued pursuant to any Award a number of shares with an aggregate Fair Market Value (as of the date the withholding is effected) that would satisfy the withholding amount due; provided, however, that the amount withheld does not exceed the maximum statutory tax rate (or in the case of Restricted Stock Awards, the Company’s minimum required tax withholding obligation) or such lesser amount as is necessary to avoid adverse accounting treatment or as determined by the Administrator.  The Administrator may also require Awards to be subject to mandatory share withholding up to the required withholding amount.”
		
	2.
	Except as modified herein, the Plan is not modified in any respect and remains in full force and effect.




Approved by the Board of Directors:  January 9, 2018
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 600 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 101
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 600

                          [Report No. 110-291]

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2007

    Mr. Welch of Vermont, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved,  That it shall be in order at any time through the 
legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, for the Speaker to entertain 
motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the following 
measures:
            (1) The bill (H.R. 3087) to require the President, in 
        coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
        Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military 
        leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive 
        strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces in 
        Iraq.
            (2) A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
        Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain 
        electronic surveillance.
                                                 House Calendar No. 101

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 600

                          [Report No. 110-291]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY 

Page 1 of 4 

(CV06-5099FDB) 

 THE HONORABLE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

MICHAEL T. WARD and SINCERE 

WARD, husband and wife, and 

MICHAEL WARD, SR. and KAREN E. 

WARD, husband and wife, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal 

corporation, TACOMA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, and Tacoma Police 

Officers ROBERT BAKER, JASON 

BROOKS, and BRIAN S. GARRISON, 

 Defendants. 

 

NO. CV06-5099FDB 

STIPULATION AND AGREED 

ORDER TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY 

OF MYKEL HANKINS 

STIPULATION 

 COME NOW the parties, by and through their attorneys, and stipulate to 

exclude the testimony of MYKEL HANKINS at trial and agree that MYKEL 

HANKINS will not be called as a witness to testify in this matter for trial. 

Case 3:06-cv-05099-FDB Document 35 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY 

Page 2 of 4 

(CV06-5099FDB) 

For the purposes of this stipulation and order, the term “exclude” shall 

mean neither party will call MYKEL HANKINS as a witness in this matter and/or 

rely on written or oral testimony provided by MYKEL HANKINS. 

 DATED this day of January, 2007. 

ELIZABETH A. PAULI, City Attorney LAW OFFICES OF 

 LEMBHARD G. HOWELL 

 

By: By: /s 

 JEAN P. HOMAN LEMBHARD G. HOWELL 

 WSBA #27084 WSBA #133 

 Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Plaintiffs 

/ 

ORDER

 Based upon the above stipulation, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that MYKEL HANKINS will not be called as a 

witness to testify at trial, and the witness testimony of MYKEL HANKINS will be 

excluded from this matter and shall be treated in accordance with the terms of 

the Stipulation. 

 DATED this 9th day of January 2007 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05099-FDB Document 35 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY 

Page 3 of 4 

(CV06-5099FDB) 

Case 3:06-cv-05099-FDB Document 35 Filed 01/09/07 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY 

Page 4 of 4 

(CV06-5099FDB) 

Presented by: 

ELIZABETH A. PAULI, City Attorney 

By: 

 JEAN P. HOMAN 

 WSB #27084 

 Assistant City Attorney 

Of Attorneys for Defendants 

Approved as to Form: 

LAW OFFICES OF LEMBHARD G. HOWELL 

By: /s 

 LEMBHARD G. HOWELL 

 WSBA #133 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on , I electronically 

filed the foregoing and supporting affidavits with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

Lembhard G. Howell, attorney for plaintiffs. 

 _______________________________ 

 JEAN P. HOMAN 

WSBA#27084 

 Attorney for Defendants 

 Tacoma City Attorney’s Office 

 747 Market Street, Suite 1120 

 Tacoma, WA 98402 

 (253) 591-5885 

 Fax: (253) 591-5755 

 jhoman@ci.tacoma.wa.us 

Case 3:06-cv-05099-FDB Document 35 Filed 01/09/07 Page 4 of 4
Case No. 6,510a.

#### HINCKLEY et al. v. The NORTHUMBERLAND.

[See Case No. 6,511.]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LINNIELL PHIPPS, ) 

)

 Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C06-0323C

)

 v. )

) ORDER DENYING § 2254 HABEAS

KENNETH QUINN, ) PETITION AND MOTION FOR

) STAY AND ABEYANCE

Respondent. ) 

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s § 2254 habeas petition, Petitioner’s motion for

stay and abeyance, Respondent’s Answer, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

Monica J. Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, finds and Orders

as follows:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED; 

(3) Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance (Dkt. No. 5) is DENIED;

(4) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

(3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, counsel for

Respondent, and to the Honorable Monica J. Benton.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2006.A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00323-JCC Document 18 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.51
                                 AMENDMENT No. 2
                                       to
                   AMETEK 401(k) PLAN FOR ACQUIRED BUSINESSES


         WHEREAS, there was adopted and made effective as of May 1, 1999, the
AMETEK Retirement and Savings Plan (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the Plan provides that AMETEK, Inc. ("AMETEK")
may amend the Plan at any time, and from time to time; and

         WHEREAS, AMETEK now desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         FIRST: Schedule I is hereby amended, to read in its entirety as
follows:


                                   "SCHEDULE I

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                     Subsidiary/Division                         Employer Matching Contribution
                     -------------------                         ------------------------------
<S>                                                              <C>
         Aerospace Division (Costa Mesa Plant)                                      4%

         AMETEK Patriot Sensors Division (Michigan)                                 3%

         AMETEK Aerospace Patriot Products                                          3%
              (California)

         AMETEK Patriot Sensors Division (Pennsylvania)                             3%
         (known as Drexelbrook Controls, Inc. until merged into
         Patriot on 1/12/00)"
</TABLE>

         SECOND: The provisions of this Amendment No. 2 shall be effective as of
January 1, 2000.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, AMETEK has caused these presents to be executed, in its
corporate name, by its duly authorized officer on this 30th day of December,
1999.

                                               AMETEK, Inc.
                                               By:  /s/ Donna F. Winquist
                                               ---------------------------------

Attest:
/s/ Kathryn E. Londra
---------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

# SUMMARY:

Notice of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), is hereby given in accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws of the FCSIC.

# DATES:

10 a.m., Wednesday, October 11, 2023.

# ADDRESSES:

                        You may observe the open portions of this meeting in person at 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, or virtually. If you would like to virtually attend, at least 24 hours in advance, visit                         *FCSIC.gov,*                         select “News & Events,” then select “Board Meetings.” From there, access the linked “Instructions for board meeting visitors” and complete the described registration process.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you need more information or assistance for accessibility reasons, or have questions, contact Ashley Waldron, Secretary to the Board. Telephone: 703-883-4009. TTY: 703-883-4056.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public. The following matters will be considered:

## Portions Open to the Public

    - Approval of Minutes for July 12, 2023
    - Quarterly FCSIC Financial Reports
    - Quarterly Report on Insured Obligations
    - Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan
    - Annual Performance Plan
    - Budget 2024-2025

## Portions Closed to the Public

    - Confidential Report on Insurance Risk

Ashley Waldron,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 2023-21681 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P