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



Exhibit 10.P



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
BENEFITS RESTORATION PLAN OF 
CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made as of the 13th day of September 2016, by Carpenter Technology Corporation, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Delaware (the “Company”).


INTRODUCTION


The Company maintains the Benefits Restoration Plan of Carpenter Technology Corporation (the “Plan”).  


The Company reserved the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 6.1 thereof.  


Effective December 31, 2016, the Company amended the General Retirement Plan for Employees of Carpenter Technology Corporation to freeze the accrued benefits of Participants and to eliminate certain ancillary benefits.  In conjunction with such amendment, the Company now desires to amend the Plan to freeze the accrued benefits of Participants effective as of December 31, 2016.


NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective as of December 31, 2016, as follows:


		
	1.
	By adding the following paragraph to the end of Section 1.1:




“Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, each Participant’s Benefits are frozen as of December 31, 2016 and will not increase as a result of Compensation or Benefit Service (as defined in the General Retirement Plan) after such date.  In no event shall the Benefits of a Participant exceed the Benefits to which such Participant is entitled as of December 31, 2016.”


		
	2.
	By adding the following sentence to the end of Section 1.8:




“Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, Compensation of a Participant will not include any amounts earned after December 31, 2016.”


		
	3.
	By adding the following new Section 2.3:




“2.3    Notwithstanding the foregoing, there shall be no new Participants in the Plan after December 31, 2016.”




Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect prior to this First Amendment.











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed on the day and year first above written.


CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
By:                             
Print Name:                         
Title:                             


2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 16, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00220

- CR

Gilbert TELLO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CRN000013

- D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Cynthia Perez Lenz ’ s notification of late record is hereby NOTED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of August, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H o ttle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4485 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4485

 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2024

   Mr. Johnson (for himself, Mr. Lee, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Braun, Ms. 
 Lummis, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Schmitt, and Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
             on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.

    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 ``Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING 
              TO ``MIDNIGHT RULES''.

    (a) In General.--Section 801(d) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under paragraph 
(1), a joint resolution of disapproval may contain one or more such 
rules if the report under subsection (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was 
submitted during the final year of a President's term.''.
    (b) Text of Resolving Clause.--Section 802(a) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' after ``(a)'';
            (2) by inserting after ``resolving clause of which is'' the 
        following: ``(except as otherwise provided in this 
        subsection)''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Joint Resolutions Under Section 801(d)(4).--In the case of a 
joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), the matter after the 
resolving clause of such resolution shall be as follows: `That Congress 
disapproves the following rules: the rule submitted by the __ relating 
to __; and the rule submitted by the __ relating to __. Such rules 
shall have no force or effect.' (The blank spaces being appropriately 
filled in and additional clauses describing additional rules to be 
included as necessary).''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 6514.

#### STATE, EX REL., JAS. S. BRADY vs. L. H. MARRERO, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson. Honorable P. E. Edrington, Judge.

St. Clair Adams, F. A. Middleton, H. A. Gautier, for relator.

L. H. Marreo, Jr., in p. p.

P. H. Mentz, for respondent.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The character of these proceedings and the question presented are the same as those involved in the case of State, ex rel., C. Centani vs. L, H. Marrero, Jr., District Attorney, No. 6512 of our docket, this day decided, and the opinion and ruling in that case are controlling here.

It is accordingly ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided and re*199versed, and that relator’s suit be dismissed at his costs in both Courts.

Opinion and decree, November 9th, 1915.

Rehearing granted, November 24th, 1915.

Opinion and decree, December 20th, 1915.

Reversed.

On Rehearing.

■ His Honor, CHARLES P. CLAIBORNE,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

For the reasons given in State, ex rel., C'entani our judgment herein remains undisturbed, and is hereby reinstated.
Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  2-97351)  pertaining to the Kansas City Life Insurance  Company Savings
and Profit  Sharing Plan of our report  dated  February 18, 2000 with respect to
the financial  statements of the Kansas City Life Insurance  Company Savings and
Profit Sharing Plan as of December 31, 1999 and for each of the two years in the
period then ended  included in this Annual Report (Form 11-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


                                                               Ernst & Young LLP


Kansas City, Missouri
March 28, 2001
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

CORRECTED JUDGMENT RENDERED

AUGUST 21, 201 4

NO. 03

- 11

- 00516

- CR

Anthony Craig Mathis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICE S PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered on July 1 5 , 2011. The Court’s

judgment dated December 18, 2013, is withdrawn. Having reviewed the record and the parties’

arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s ju dgment of

conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. The appellant

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 28, 2016

NO. 03-16-00208-CR

Raul Garcia, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
No. 62574.

#### Brenner Bros. Fur Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 154080-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold*& *Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in

C. D. 1643, *supra.*
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0186 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0186

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 May 2007 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation on cooperation in fisheries and the conservation of the living marine resources in the Baltic Sea (COM(2006)0868 - C6-0052/2007 - 2006/0309(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 102 E , 24/04/2008 P. 0086 - 0086 *

P6_TA(2007)0186

EC-Russia Fisheries and Conservation Agreement *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 May 2007 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation on cooperation in fisheries and the conservation of the living marine resources in the Baltic Sea (COM(2006)0868 — C6-0052/2007 — 2006/0309(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council regulation (COM(2006)0868) [1],

- having regard to Articles 37 and 300(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0052/2007),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0160/2007);

1. Approves the proposal for a Council regulation as amended and approves conclusion of the agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Russian Federation.

TEXT PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION | AMENDMENT BY PARLIAMENT |

Amendment 1

Article 2a (new)

| Article 2a During the third and last years of application of the Agreement, prior to the opening of negotiations on its possible renewal, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council general assessment reports analysing the impact of the Agreement on the conservation of resources and the protection of the environment, and the economic and social repercussions of its application. |

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Exhibit
32.1





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 m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Zach Sivan, Chief
Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





(1)  the Report fully
comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Zach SivanZach
      Sivan, Chief Executive OfficerDated:
      May 17, 2010
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1576 DFL EFB P

vs.

JOSEPH BICK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He requests an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 

Plaintiff’s September 18, 2006, motion for an extension of time is granted and plaintiff

has 30 days from the date this order is served to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment.

So ordered. 

Dated: October 17, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 40 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

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

In connection with this quarterly report of Essex Portfolio, L.P. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Keith R. Guericke, Chief
Executive Officerof Essex Property Trust, Inc., the general partner of
the registrant Essex Portfolio, L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

August 9, 2004

By: /s/ KEITH R. GUERICKE

Keith R. Guericke
                  Chief Executive Officer

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21


21. Subsidiaries of the registrant



                            WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES

Keithley International Investment Corporation
28775 Aurora Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44139, U.S.A.

Keithley Foreign Sales Corporation
5 Norre Gade, Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801

FRANCE:  Keithley Instruments SARL
3 Allee des Garays
91122 Palaiseau Cedex

GERMANY:  Keithley Instruments GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 65
82110 Germering (Munich)

GREAT BRITAIN:  Keithley Instruments Ltd.
The Minister, 58 Portman Road
Reading (London), Berkshire RG30 1EA

ITALY:  Keithley Instruments SRL
Viale San Gimignano 38
20146 Milano

NETHERLANDS:  Keithley Instruments BV
Postbus 559
4200 AN Gorinchem (Amsterdam)

SWITZERLAND:  Keithley Instruments SA
Kriesbachstrasse 4
8600 Dubendorf (Zurich)
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.B 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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, of
El Paso Production Holding Company (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gene T.
Waguespack, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Controller, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Gene T. WaguespackGene T. WaguespackSenior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer,Treasurer and Controller(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)November 7, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
Production Holding Company and will be retained by El Paso Production Holding Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY D. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1164 FCD GGH P

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an opposition to the defendants’

December 13, 2005 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also filed a motion to compel

discovery, on January 3, 2006, which is beyond the October 21, 2005 deadline set forth in the

July 15, 2005 scheduling order for doing so; although the motion is not yet adjudicated, on the

face of it, plaintiff has not, by his untimely motion, made the requisite showing that he is entitled

to a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Nevertheless, the court will partially grant

plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file an opposition to the pending motion for

summary judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's January 3, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted in part;

and

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01164-FCD-GGH Document 27 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to the defendants’ December 13, 2005 motion for summary; judgment. 

Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: 1/13/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

edwa1164.36

Case 2:04-cv-01164-FCD-GGH Document 27 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 2
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW M. LEARNED, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1833 LKK DAD PS

vs.

MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On April 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections

to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01833-LKK -DAD Document 19 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 22, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

granted;

3. Plaintiff’s request for additional time to file a petition to vacate arbitration

award in state court is denied; and

4. This action is dismissed in its entirety.

DATED: May 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/learned1833.jo

Case 2:04-cv-01833-LKK -DAD Document 19 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

June 7, 1962

No. 66836.

#### Lewis & Pina *v.*United States,

protests 59/29932, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in aE material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Brick & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58995.

protests 227303-K and 241813-K (New York).

#### Nisonger Sales Co. and Trans World Shipping Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers and parts thereof similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers and parts thereof in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ali Yazdchi v. Wells Fargo

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00 381

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 23577

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

By our order dated October 13, 2015, we stated that appellant’s brief will be due

30 days after the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record. See T EX

. R. A PP . P.

34.5(c). On November 11, 2015, the trial court clerk filed the supplemental cle rk’s

record.

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days from the date of

this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6(a).

Appelle e’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of

appellant’s brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6(b).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 13, 2015
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE STITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1395 DFL KJM P

vs.

MICHAEL HARRISON, 

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed May 4, 2005, petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus was

dismissed and thirty days’ leave to file an amended application was granted. The thirty day

period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed an amended application or otherwise

responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 2:04-cv-01395-DFL -KJM Document 6 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/bb

stit1395.ftah

Case 2:04-cv-01395-DFL -KJM Document 6 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 2