alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First Amendment to Executive Severance Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.14 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN 
 A. The Boston Properties, Inc. Executive Severance Plan, as adopted as of July 30, 1998 (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows:

 1. Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the third sentence thereof and substituting therefor the following:

 “The initial Gross-Up Payment, if any, as determined pursuant to this Section 5(b), shall be paid as withholding
taxes to the taxing authorities on behalf of the Covered Employee at such time or times when the Excise Tax is due.” 
 2. The Plan is
further amended by adding the following Section 16 at the end thereof: 
 “16. Section 409A.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, if at the time of Covered Employee’s separation from service within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the ‘Code’), the Covered
Employee is considered a ‘specified employee’ within the meaning of Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code, and if any payment or benefit that the Covered Employee becomes entitled to under this Agreement would be considered deferred
compensation subject to interest, penalties and additional tax imposed pursuant to Section 409A(a) of the Code as a result of the application of Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code, then no such payment or benefit shall be payable or
provided prior to the date that is the earlier of (i) six months and one day after the Covered Employee’s separation from service, or (ii) the Covered Employee’s death. Any such deferred payment shall earn simple interest
calculated at the short-term applicable federal rate in effect on the Date of Termination. On or before the Covered Employee’s Date of Termination, the Company shall make an irrevocable contribution to a rabbi trust with an independent bank
trustee in an amount equal to the amount of such deferred payment plus interest.” 
 B. Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain
in full force and effect. 
  







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been
executed on behalf of the Company by its duly authorized officer this 18th day of October, 2007. 
 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. 
 By:  /s/  Douglas T. Linde                 
         Name: Douglas T. Linde 
         Title: President 
  

 2
-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:32PM -----
To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 
Date: 02/12/2010 06:31PM 
cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 
Subject: Clarifying questions on RICE
Hi Melanie,

Attached you'll find a spreadsheet of the costs and benefits for area source engines between 
300 and 500 HP.  The attached analysis shows that requiring controls for these engines, if 
they run less than ~100 hrs per year, is not cost-beneficial (costs of controls exceed the 
PM2.5 benefits).  Do you know how many engines in this group run less than 100 hours per 
year and are not emergency engines?  

Additionally, for these sized engines running 100 hours, the estimate of reporting costs is 1/3 
of the total annual costs.  Given that these engines will have control devices installed, and 
emissions reductions will be achieved, is there any flexibility to ease the reporting 
requirements?  Furthermore, is there any flexibility in lessening in the reporting requirements 
for the area source engines subject to emissions limits (and thus technology controls)?


Thanks,
Cortney
No. 40501.

#### Protest 802082-G (B) of Caradine Hat Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

As the protest was not filed within the statutory time it was dismissed as untimely.
steam

_ record - Fw: RRI Avon Lake Plant Request for ICR Extension

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 08:03PM -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Rogatto, Daniel A." <DARogatto@rrienergy.com> Date: 06/29/2010 03:02PM cc: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>, "Lackowski, Claude M." <CMLackowski@rrienergy.com>, "Laeng , Robert W." <RLaeng@rrienergy.com> Subject: RRI Avon Lake Plan t Request for ICR Extension

Ms. Alicea,

Please find attached corresponden ce for EPA’s consideration to extend the deadline to complete and comply for the RRI Avon Lake Plant effluent ICR requirements.

If you have any questions, please call me.

Dan Rogatto From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: <steam_record@erg.c om>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov> Date: 7/2/2010 7:04 PM Sub j ect: Fw: RRI Avon Lake Plant Request for ICR Extension Attachments: 20100629131747861.pdf Pa g e 1 of 1

3/21/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E383CD

...
No. 55665.

#### A. Schulman, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 134883-K (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 42115.

#### Protests 730520-G, etc., of Gus Sclafani et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302) and Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**DIRECT
      RESPONSE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.**


**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 Direct Response Financial Services,
      Inc.
      (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
      Daniel Brandt, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. ss.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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Direct Response Financial Services, Inc. and will be retained by Direct Response
      Financial Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.






Dated:
      September 21, 2006


/s/
      Daniel Brandt


Name:
      Daniel Brandt


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer
This CD is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a

copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without

consent of the copyright holder.

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view

or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be

made as follows:

In person/writing :

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center

1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334

Washington, DC. 20004

Telephone:

202

- 566

- 1744

Fax:

202

- 566

- 9744

Email:

docket

- customerservice@epa.gov
**EXHIBIT      32.0**

**Section      1350 CERTIFICATION **

| (1) | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter                ended                December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C.                78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | By:         | /s/                Edward J. Molnar      |   |
|--------|-------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |        | Edward                J. Molnar          |   |
|   |        | Chief                Executive Officer   |   |
|   |        |                                     |   |
|   | * *By: | /s/                Brendan J. McGill     |   |
|   |        | Brendan                J. McGill         |   |
|   |        | Senior                Vice President and |   |
|   |        | Chief                Financial Officer   |   |
#### Hallgarten & Company *v.*Schwing, Appellant.

Argued May 12, 1936.

Before Kephart, C. J., Schaefer, Maxey, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.

*256*G. E. Bordwell,*of *Bordwell & Eldred,*for appellant.

*Wm. Glassman,*for appellee.

June 26, 1936:

Per Curiam,

Appellant averred that she had executed the note, on which judgment had been entered, because of threats and fear that her intimate friend, C. B. Kelley, who had been arrested for obtaining money by fraudulent means, would be sentenced and imprisoned for a long term, and that she was promised the charges would be nolle prossed if she made restitution. She did not allege threats against either her person or property and offered no testimony. The answer of the appellee denied every material averment of the petition.

As the allegations of the petition are flatly denied by the answer, and as petitioner submitted no evidence in support of her averments or in contradiction of the .denials and the testimony upholding it, it is clear she failed to carry the burden justifying the opening of the judgment and granting of a jury trial: *Ferguson, Exr., v. O’Hara,*286 Pa. 37; *Huppert v. Huppert,*224 Pa. 374; see *Mutual B.*& *L. Assn. v. Walukiewicz,*322 Pa. 240. The court below did not err in dismissing the petition.

Orders affirmed at appellant’s cost.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND , TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Manuel Santiago

- Negron a / k / a * From the 35 th District Court Juan Manuel Santiago

- Negron of Brown County,

a / k / a Juan Negron

- Santiago, Jr., Trial Court No. CR27440

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 313

- CR * April 4

, 202 4

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey, C.J. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,
Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,
the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Henorable Coke

Admlnlstroter March 7, 1957

R. Stevensan, Jr. Texas Liquor CentralBoard 1300 Guadalupe Austin, Texas Opinion WW-49 Re: Interpretationto be placed on Section 17 (3)(f),Artlcle 666, Penal Cede of Texas - whether a vcaluntarytrade associationmay be formedby retail package stere owners and dues collected frsm the members en a voluntarybasis by wholesalerswho, as an accemmedatisn to the retailers, add a per case assessment as a separate item en each lnvoice, such sums ta be remitted by the wholesalers to the trade association Dear Mr. Stevensenr monthly.

This will acknowledgereceipt ef your letter ef February 27th, 1957,with reference to the lesallty bf the propased plan as outlined above and inwhich you inquirewhether such plan Is legal, stating that the questianhas been raised as towhether er net the plan of collectlenwould am&nt to an inducement@n the part ef the wholesaler and thusbe a violation of subdivision (f) of Section 17 (3) sf Article 666 - Penal Code of Texas.

In determining the legality of the propased plan, it is necessary to csnslder all of Article 1 af the Texas Liquor Cantrcl Act, this articlebeing caveredby Article 666 of the Penal Code of Texas. Subdivision (f) of Section 17 (3)makes it unlawful for any whelesaler or any agent, servant or employee ef the wholesaler:Hon. Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., Pace 2 (WW-49)

"To @ffer any prize, premium, gift, or any similar Inducement te any retailer or cbnsumer, or the agent, servant or employee of either." It Is net clear frem y@ur @pinion request that the prepbsed plan would be In violation of the above described subheading,but we do call your attention te Section 17 (3) (b) Inwhich It ismade illegal:

"lx furnish, give, or lend any money, service or ether thing of value, or ta ruarantee the fulfillmentor any fln&clal ebligatlon of (Emphasisadded.) We also call ymur attention part af which is as follsws: any retail&."

to Article 666-4, a "Anyact done by any persenwhich is not granted in thisAct is hereby declared tobe unlawful." and ta subdivision (2) of Section 17 (Article666-17 (2) ) in which it Ismade unlawful for any persen. directly or indirectly to hold or have an Interest inmolethan five package storepermits, thebusiness thereof, er have any interest In such package stores.

It is @ur opinion that the proposedmethod bf collectingdues from the members of the veluntary trade associatien ef package store retailersby whhelesalere, as an aceemmodatien to the retailers er theirvcluntaryassociation is the furnishingand giving af service,which is a thing of value,by thewholesalers te the retailers and Is in vlolatien of Section 17 (3) (b) of Article666 @f the Penal Cede.Hon. Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., page 3 (WW-49)

It Is a violation of the Texas Llquer Control Aot, Article 1 and specificallyof Sectlen 17 (31 (b) for a whelesaler to furnish te a voluntary trade'atisoclatlcn of retailers the service sf collecting dues fr@m retailers.

Yaurs very truly, WILLWILSON Attorney General

JWW:ms APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE R. Grady Chandler Chairman
#### Earl J. FRANZ v. FIRST BANK SYSTEM, INC., et al.

No. 98-CC-3163.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 28, 1998.

Rehearing Granted Feb. 12, 1999.

In re Franz, Earl J. — -Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, Div. “I”, No. 96-3536; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 98CW-1963.

Granted. Ruling of trial judge striking Mr. Ludemburg’s testimony is vacated and set aside. Case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.
|   | (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 |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                                                        | June                  14, 2006 |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                                                         |                           |
|                                                         |                           |
| /s/                  William B. Danzell                      |                           |
| William                  B. Danzell, Chief Executive Officer |                           |
|                                                         |                           |
|                                                         |                           |
|                                                         |                           |
| Date:                                                        | June                  14, 2006 |   |
|                                                         |                           |
|                                                         |                           |
| /s/                  Nigel P. Hebborn                        |                           |
| Nigel                  P. Hebborn, Chief Financial Officer   |                           |
|                                                         |                           |
|                                                         |                           |
|                                                         |                           |
Before the Second Division,

February 9, 1940

No. 43218.

#### Protests 984301-G, etc., of Alliance Distributors, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection and 

installation 5.0 $ 425.00 $25,640 $26,065.00 7 $182,455.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $182,455

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In the Interest of D.J. and E.J., children. )

___________________________________)

)

C.J., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-263

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD )

LITEM PROGRAM, )

)

)

Appellees. )

)

Opinion filed October 23, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Leigh Frizzell Hayes, Judge.

C.J., pro se. 

Meredith K. Hall, Appellate Counsel, 

Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, 

for Appellee Department of Children and 

Families.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of 

Appeals, and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, 

Appellate Counsel, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
- 2 -

MORRIS, ATKINSON, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50103 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. L AR RYW AY NE NOR W OOD , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 06- C R
- 979- 3 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e att orney app oi n t ed t o represent L arry W ayn e N orw ood has m oved f or l e av e t o w i t hdr aw a nd has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). N o r w o o dh a s file dare s p o n s e . T h e r e c o r dis in s u ffic ie n tly deve l ope d t o a l l ow c ons i der at i on att hi s t i m e o f N or w oo d ’ s c l ai m s of i nef fec t ive as si st ance of

c ounse l ; s uch c l ai m s gener al l y “ c annotbe r es olved on di r ec tappeal w hen t hey have notbe en r ai se d bef or e t he di st r i c tc our ts i nce no o ppor t uni t y United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50103

2 ex i sted to d ev elop th e record on the m erits of t h e a l l eg a ti on s. ” Uni t e d St at e s v. Can t w ell , 4 70 F. 3d1 08 7, 1 09 1 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . Ou r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’ s br i e f, a nd N o r w o o d ’ s r e s po ns e di s c l o s e s no no nf r ivo l o us i s s ue f

o r ap pe al . Ac c o r di ngly, t he m ot i on f

or l eave to w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r e s p o n s ib ilitie s h e r e in , a n dth e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2.
No. 55661.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 163226-K and 164715-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.