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



 Exhibit 10.1 

* CONFIDENTIAL TREATEMENT REQUESTED. CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATEDLY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO MASTER DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 

This Second Amendment to Master Distribution Agreement is entered into effective as of September 7, 2016 by and between Bojangles’
Restaurants, Inc. (“Company”) and McLane Foodservice, Inc. (“McLane”), and amends the Master Distribution Agreement between them dated September 9, 2015 (as previously amended by Amendment to Master Distribution
Agreement dated October 20, 2015, the “Agreement”). 
 1.    Defined Terms. Each
capitalized term used in this amendment without definition has the meaning given to that term in the Agreement. 

2.    Amendment of Agreement. Effective as of the date first written above: 

(a)    The third paragraph of Section 2 of Schedule 1 to the Agreement is amended by deleting the reference to
“October 30, 2016” and replacing it with “November 1, 2017.” 
 (b)    The sentence in Schedule
5 to the Agreement that reads, * is deleted and replaced with the following sentence: *. 
 (c)    The second
sentence of Section 2 of Schedule 1 to the Agreement is amended by deleting the reference to “and *-day payment terms will not be applied during the initial 12 months following the Effective Date” and replacing it with “will
not be applied and will be waived until *.” 
 3.     Miscellaneous. 

(a)    This amendment is limited as specified and does not constitute a modification, amendment or waiver of any other
provision of the Agreement. Except as specifically amended by this amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed. 

(b)    This amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which is to be deemed an original, and all of which
constitute one and the same instrument. 
 (c)    The laws of the state of Texas, other than its conflict of law rules,
govern this amendment. 
 * CONFIDENTIAL TREATEMENT REQUESTED. CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATEDLY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION. 







 The parties have entered into this amendment as of the date first written above. 

 

							
	Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc.	 	McLane Foodservice, Inc.
				
	By:	 	/s/ Eric M. Newman	 	By:	 	/s/ Susan Adzick
				
	Name:	 	Eric M. Newman	 	Name:	 	Susan Adzick
				
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President	 	Title:	 	Vice President, Sales & Marketing
				
	Date:	 	September 9, 2016	 	Date:	 	September 7, 2016


  
 -2-
NUMBER 13-12-00637-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JIM HAMILTON, TDCJ# 1079035, Appellant,

v.

BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL., Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 36th District Court 

of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was originally due on January 16, 2013. 

Appellant has previously requested and received two prior extensions of time to file the 

brief. On April 26, 2013, this Court ordered the appellate brief to be filed on or before 

May 24, 2013. The order notified counsel that no further extensions would be granted 

and that if the brief was not filed, the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of 
2

prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless appellant 

reasonably explained the failure and the appellees were not significantly injured by the 

appellant's failure to timely file a brief. 

Instead of filing the brief, appellant filed a third motion for extension of time to file 

the brief requesting until June 1, 2013, or in the alternative thirty days from the time the 

ruling on the motion. On May 10, 2013, the Court denied appellant’s motion for 

extension of time to file the brief. 

Appellant has failed to file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b),(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

13th day of June, 2013.
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

DIRECTV INC.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-2409 GEB GGH PS

vs.

JACK TURNBOUGH,

Defendant. ORDER

______________________________/

On May 4, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections

were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact

are correct. See Orland v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th

Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

Case 2:04-cv-02409-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 07/06/05 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

The portion of the Proposed Findings and

Recommendations filed May 4, 2005, which strikes defendant’s

answer is adopted.

Dated: July 5, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02409-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 07/06/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID C. RIVERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2524 GEB PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to explain in writing why this action should

not be dismissed pursuant to the order filed March 8, 2006. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's March 27, 2006, request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to explain in writing why this

action should not be dismissed. 

DATED: May 2, 2006.

\004

\rive2524.36

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 1
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 Vitasti, Inc.  (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb,
      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:





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





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











Date: May
      22,
      2006


By: /s/
      TAMMY-LYNN MCNABB





Name:
       Tammy-Lynn McNabb


Title:
         Chief Executive Officer
II 

Calendar No. 80 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 460 

[Report No. 118–34] 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban 

Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 

Ms. SMITH (for herself, Mr. MULLIN, and Mr. LUJA ́N) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

MAY 30, 2023 

Reported by Mr. SCHATZ, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Indian Health 

5 Confer Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 460 RS

1 SEC. 2. URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION CONFER POLICY. 

2 Section 514 of the Indian Health Care Improvement 

3 Act (25 U.S.C. 1660d) is amended by striking subsection 

4 (b) and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall ensure 

6 that the Service and the other agencies and offices of the 

7 Department confer, to the maximum extent practicable, 

8 with urban Indian organizations in carrying out— 

9 ‘‘(1) this Act; and 

10 ‘‘(2) other provisions of law relating to Indian 

11 health care.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 80 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 460 

[Report No. 118–34] 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement 

Human Services. confer policy for the Department of Health and Act to establish an urban Indian organization 

MAY 30, 2023 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4356]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-322-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised 
tariff sheets to become effective April 1, 2007.

Sixty-Fifth Revised Sheet No. 15
Thirty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 15A
Sixty-Third Revised Sheet No. 18
Thirty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 18A
Thirty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 19
Thirty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 20
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 724

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c0a091e0f0322202522291f393c3c233e380c2a293e2f622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="edaba8bfaea28381848388be989d9d829f99ad8b889f8ec38a829b">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4356 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 46158.

#### Petition 6144-R of Hawley & Letzerich (Galveston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared that the merchandise belonged to a refugee who has been unable to emigrate to the United States, that it had remained in public stores until it was about to be seized by the Government and sold. The broker therefore made entry at a nominal sum in order to preserve the goods for the owner. He had no knowledge of the contents of the packages. When examined the merchandise was found to have a greater value and the broker was charged with additional duties for undervaluation. The appraiser testified also that there was no attempt to deceive him and no evidence of fraud. The petition was therefore granted.
<PAGE>

                     32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CEO

                    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 the Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, George S. Springsteen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies 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/      George S. Springsteen
------------------------------

George S. Springsteen
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2005
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 574 -CV In re Ivo Nabelek

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS COUNTY M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N We deny the petition for wr it of mandamus filed by Ivo Nabe lek.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and W aldrop Filed: Nove mber 14, 2006
EXHIBIT 10.2


 





Amendment to the

Whole Foods Executive Retention Plan and

Non-Compete Arrangement Agreement


 


This Amendment (this “Amendment”) is made and
entered into as of November 2, 2016, by and between Whole Foods Market Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Employer”),
and Walter E. Robb, IV (the “Covered Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Employer and the Covered Executive have entered into
the Whole Foods Executive Retention Plan and Non-Compete Arrangement Agreement, dated as of May 16, 2012 (the “Plan
Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, simultaneously herewith, Whole Foods Market, Inc., a Texas
corporation (the “Company”), and the Covered Executive are entering into a Separation, Consulting, and Noncompetition
Agreement pursuant to which the Covered Executive shall, among other things, resign as Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
effective as of December 31, 2016 (the “Resignation”); and


 


WHEREAS, in connection with the Resignation, the Employer and the
Covered Executive desire to amend the Plan Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 7 of the Plan Agreement,
the Plan Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


 


		1.	Notwithstanding Section 2(b)(i) of the Plan Agreement, the Covered Executive’s ownership and operation of a single
retail food store or coffee shop with his immediate family members that neither (a) exceeds 20,000 square feet in retail
space nor (b) is located within three miles of an existing Whole Foods Market or 365 store shall not constitute a breach of
Section 2(b)(i) of the Plan Agreement.



 


		2.	Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without
giving effect to the principles of conflicts of laws. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






     

     

    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment
as of the date first written above.


 


WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC.


 


 


 


By: ________________________________


Name:


Title:


 


 


 


__________________________________


Walter E. Robb, IV


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment
as of the date first written above.


 


WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., as Plan Administrator


 


 


 


By: ________________________________


Name: Dr. John B. Elstrott


Title: Chairman of the Board of Directors
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

DONALD L. CAVINESS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2629 MCE JFM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On April 11, 2005, petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file a

traverse. On April 18, 2005, petitioner filed his traverse. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s April 11, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner’s April 18, 2005 traverse is deemed timely filed.

DATED: April 22, 2005.

/kf;cavi2629.111

Case 2:04-cv-02629-MCE -JFM Document 17 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 1
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1025 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CUSTOMS 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MAURITIUS 

Signed at Washington October 25, 2007 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MAURITIUS 

 Customs 

 Agreement signed at Washington October 25, 2007; 

 Entered into force October 25, 2007.
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

NICOLAS TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2368 MCE GGH P

vs.

D. LORUSSO,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On July 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for the appointment of counsel.” That

document was not served on defendant. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to the

court for consideration must be served on defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to be

served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has

filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then documents submitted by

plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendant. Every document submitted

conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate

stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendant or his attorney and the

address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 13, 2005 motion for

appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to properly

Case 2:04-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 29 Filed 08/05/05 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

serve any documents subsequently filed in this action, and failure to include a proper certificate

of service with such filing, may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 8/5/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

truj2368.35(3)

Case 2:04-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 29 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2
February 9, 1944

No. 49203.

#### Protest 842163-G of E. H. Bailey & Co.

C. D. 821. Government's application for rehearing denied.
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

VISION SERVICE PLAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1993 LKK JFM PS

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Defendant’s motion for protective order came on regularly for telephonic hearing

August 22, 2005 on shortened time. William K. Rasmussen appeared for plaintiff. Anton L.

Janik, Jr., Trial Attorney, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice, appeared for

defendant. Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, upon

hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS

FOLLOWS:

Defendant’s August 8, 2005 motion for protective order is partially granted. 

Plaintiff shall not inquire into topics 15 and 16 listed in Exhibit A to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)

deposition notice. In all other respects, defendant’s motion for protective order is denied. 

DATED: August 22, 2005.

001; vsp.oah

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 36 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Eliahu Lipkis, Appellant, v Gina Gilmour, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 957]

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department (Parness, J. P., Miller, and McCooe, JJ.), entered on or about January 12, 1994, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Pierre Turner, J.), entered on or about August 7, 1992, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by the Appellate Term, without costs and disbursements, No opinion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ. *[See,*160 Misc 2d 50.]
No. 58574.

protest 203826-K/4436 (Chicago).

#### American Express Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pendants similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Brier Manufacturing Co.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 68, C. A. D. 465), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.