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

FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
AON PLC AMENDED AND RESTATED 
SENIOR EXECUTIVE COMBINED SEVERANCE 
AND CHANGE IN CONTROL PLAN


This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Aon plc Amended and Restated Senior Executive Combined Severance and Change in Control Plan, as amended and restated effective June 21, 2019 (the “Plan”), is adopted by Aon plc, a public limited company incorporated under Irish law (the “Company”), to be effective as set forth below.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan allows the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) to amend the Plan; and 
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolutions of the Board dated September 30, 2021, the Board has approved an amendment to the Plan as set forth herein and delegated authority to the undersigned officer to execute such amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of September 30, 2021, by deleting Section 1(m) (the definition of “Executive”) in its entirety and replacing it with the following:
“‘Executive’ means any person who: 
(1) is both (A) a member of the Company’s Executive Committee or any successor thereto (the “Executive Committee”) (or was a member of the Company’s Executive Committee immediately prior to the date on which a circumstance constituting Good Reason or CIC Good Reason initially existed) and (B) designated as an ‘officer’ under Rule 16a-1(f) of the Exchange Act (a “Section 16 Officer”) (or was a Section 16 Officer immediately prior to the date on which a circumstance constituting Good Reason or CIC Good Reason initially existed); or 
(2) was a member of the Company’s Executive Committee as in effect on June 1, 2019;
provided that (i) an Executive shall not be entitled to any benefits payable upon a Qualifying Termination under this Plan in the event that the Executive is party to an individual contractual arrangement with the Company relating to the provision of severance benefits, and (ii) an Executive shall not be entitled to any benefits payable upon a CIC Qualifying Termination under this Plan in the event that the Executive is party to an individual contractual arrangement with the Company relating to the provision of severance benefits upon a change in control event.”






1








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officer, this 30th day of September 2021.


AON plc                        


By:                            


_/s/ Lisa Stevens______________________________            
Lisa Stevens                         
Chief People Officer                    


2
### 9 **- Octadecen**  **- 1**  **- amine,hydrochloride (1:1), (9Z)**  **- CA** **S No.:41130 -** **29 -** **4 (aka Oley**  **lamine HCL) Impurities**  The only recognized i mpurity formed in the production of the new chemical 9 - Octadecen - 1 - amine, hydrochloride (1:1), (9Z) CAS Registry Number (41130 - 29 -4) is the 9 - Octadecen - 1 - amine, N - (9Z) - 9 - octadecen - 1 -yl - , (9Z), hydrochloride which is fo rmed by the same acidification that produces Oleylamine HCL but involves the reaction of a impur ity found in the amine feedstock known as 9 - Octadecen - 1 - amine, N - (9Z) - 9 - octadecen - 1 -yl - , (9Z) ( CAS R N 40165 - 86 - 2 ). The amount of this di - oleylamine impurity in the source of oleylamine precursor is 5%. There are not expected to be any by products or impurities formed from the precursor for the new chemical.
' 1

· 1 "·<r"O"FI 1 h 

From: ·· ,('.:;~r:Y OJ)fJ1Anoi:JS Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:34 PM 

To: lGI? ·! 0 t1.: (] l Sewell, Richard E (DOT); Andrew Milligrock, Mayor of Diomede; Pearl Mikulski 

(PMikulski@kawerak.org); Cronkhite, Rebecca J (DOT) (reoecca.cronkhite@alaska.gov); 

Alaska DOT, Linda Bustamante 

Cc: Adams, Kevin (OST); Syed, Mohsin (OST); bp.spec@kawerak.org; Ryan Robinson 

(Ryan.Robinson@evergreenaviation.com); Alice Bioff; Anne Marie Ozenna; Bryant 

Hammorld; Melanie Bahnke (MBahnke@kawerak.org); Vick, Jody H (CEO) 

Uody.vick@alaska.gov); Scott Ruby (scott.ruby@alaska.gov) 

Subject: Comment on Air Service to Little Diomede 

Rich, Mayor IVIilligrock, et al, 

I ap<)logize in advance for the timing of this. One of the proposals that we received was for boat service frorn Urniaq 

Services. Upon receiving the boat proposal, we went to' the Department's Office of General Counsel to request a ruling 

on whether boat service could be subsidized under the "Essential AIR Service (EAS) program. The short answer is that 

OGC ruled that the EAS stat.utes do not permit our subsidizing boat service, so that is no longer an option for your 

consideration. Nonetheless, we are happy to entertain any comments you may have regarding Evergreen's helicopter 

proposaL 

Dt:nr.is DeVany 

zJ1ief. t:::/45 Program 

.... ·· ... 

"· ,;,. 

~ .· ..... 

. ·•
Exhibit 12: Page 1 of 2

WESTERN STATES OFFICE AND 

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND

SECOND SUSPENSION APPLICATION

Exhibit 12
Western States Office and Professional Employees Pension Fund

Exhibit 12: Page 2 of 2

Exhibit 12

Application for Approval of Suspension of Benefits

for the

Western States Office and Professional Employees Pension Fund 

Information Regarding the Enrolled Actuary

Name: Paul Graf

Enrollment Number: 17-05627

Company: Rael & Letson

Address: 999 Third Avenue, Suite 1530

Seattle, Washington 98104

Phone: (206) 445-1852

Fax: (206) 445-1840

E-Mail: paulg@rael-letson.com
H. R. 2324 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2800 South 

Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ‘‘D. Edwina Stephens Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. D. EDWINA STEPHENS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2800 South Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘D. Edwina Stephens Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘D. Edwina Stephens Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Donald H. THOMPSON, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. PADRICK CHEVROLET COMPANY et al., Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

No. 42499.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 16, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,251
<PP&E>                                           3,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,159
<BONDS>                                          1,884
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        152
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                         583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,975
<SALES>                                          6,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,414
<CGS>                                            3,389
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    808
<INCOME-TAX>                                       271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                504
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       504
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6771
JOHN WESTLEY LEE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus EUGEN M. NUTH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-95- 3684-CCB) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Westley Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Lee v. Nuth , No. CA-95-3684- CCB (D. Md. Apr. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32  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 Northeast Utilities (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Charles W. Shivery, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and David R. McHale, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the registrant.


|    |                                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------
|/s/ | Charles W. Shivery                             
|    | Charles W. Shivery                             
|    | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer




|    |                                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------
|/s/ | David R. McHale                                  
|    | David R. McHale                                  
|    | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 4, 2006  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32
CERTIFICATION

We, Ronald W. Kaplan, President and Chief Executive Officer, and J. L.
Dickinson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of Continental Global
Group, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
       ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
       of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

/s/ Ronald W. Kaplan                        /s/ J. L. Dickinson
--------------------------------------      ------------------------------------
Ronald W. Kaplan, President and Chief       J. L. Dickinson, Vice President and
   Executive Officer                           Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  May 15, 2007


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by Continental Global Group, Inc. for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that Continental Global Group, Inc. specifically
incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Arthur Richard AXELMAN v. STATE.

No. 38277.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
Regulatory Evaluation 

DocketNo.FAA-~~'_3-CJq :3Q 2.015- JJM- 040 -A- i) Directorate Identifier: -AD 

!l you make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update accordingly. (( 

they do not, cbck (or Tab) into and then out ofrhe changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

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

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Initial Inspection .+6- $0 -8fT" l "+ <? ~ 

...,.... 

L....O ITfOi.c<> ,go \ri]O ,dl> ! 2!5:1 ho 

f',i / n il <~ ~ 

1 {I " ''I! I I \1 tl 

{'' I '), !J(I 

( I ( .I I j 

' ! ,, 

! ' \ It 'l 

( {! u c ! 

() 

() ) 

n ' (t '·' 

.I H '' (o( I I 

'J H 1, ll ()P •l I I 

I on I' I 

) ( t, Oft ('l 

(! : '" I, 

' ,l on { 

\ II \ )() I, 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $6,800 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replacement of i&LtoO ~ 

11655 .:! :' {~,of<:>..,,, [' 

Fastener 3 .0 "' 

() (\ 

<, I, dl, II 1 

{ I'(· I tiP 

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): 

fe, 

ev.jill<?of 
, 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action ~ 

YES* D NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* D NO IZI 

*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 D NO IZI 

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* D NO IZI 

*Explanation:
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 CONOLOG CORPORATION (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Robert S. Benou and Marc Benou, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief
Operating Officer and the President, Chief Operating Officer and Secretary,
respectively, of the Company, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                              /s/ ROBERT S. BENOU
                                              -------------------
                                              Robert S. Benou
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer

                                              /s/ MARC BENOU
                                              --------------
                                              Marc Benou
                                              Chief Operating Officer,
                                              President and Secretary

December 15, 2003
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 2nd QUARTER 2007

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO

4-WEEK AND 3/29 4/2 4/5 15.00 20.00 16.00 62.00 -11.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 4/5 4/9 4/12 15.00 17.00 15.00 62.00 -15.00

4/12 4/16 4/19 8.00 14.00 13.00 57.00 -22.00

4/19 4/23 4/26 8.00 14.00 13.00 54.00 -19.00

4/26 4/30 5/3 8.00 14.00 13.00 47.00 -12.00

5/3 5/7 5/10 10.00 14.00 13.00 48.00 -11.00

5/10 5/14 5/17 18.00 14.00 13.00 41.00 4.00

5/17 5/21 5/24 18.00 14.00 13.00 43.00 2.00

5/24 5/29 5/31 18.00 14.00 13.00 44.00 1.00

5/31 6/4 6/7 18.00 14.00 13.00 48.00 -3.00

6/7 6/11 6/14 18.00 14.00 13.00 56.00 -11.00

6/14 6/18 6/21 8.00 14.00 13.00 55.00 -20.00

6/21 6/25 6/28 8.00 14.00 13.00 53.00 -18.00

535.00 670.00 -135.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

14-DAY BILL 3/28 3/30 4/2 25.00 25.00 0.00

Matures 4/16

11-DAY BILL 4/2 4/4 4/5 12.00 12.00 0.00

Matures 4/16

4-DAY BILL 4/9 4/11 4/12 8.00 8.00 0.00

Matures 4/16

0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS - R 4/5 4/12 4/16 7.00 -1.00 7.00

5-Year TIPS 4/19 4/24 4/30 8.00 -3.00

2-Year Note 4/23 4/25 4/30 20.00

5-Year Note 4/23 4/26 4/30 13.00 21.60 19.40

3-Year Note 5/2 5/7 5/15 15.00 -3.00

10-Year Note 5/2 5/8 5/15 13.00

30-Year Bond - R 5/2 5/10 5/15 6.00 -4.00 54.60 -20.60

2-Year Note 5/24 5/29 5/31 20.00

5-year Note 5/24 5/30 5/31 13.00 21.40 11.60

10-Year Note - R 6/11 6/14 6/15 8.00 8.00

2-Year Note 6/25 6/26 7/2 * 20.00

5-year Note 6/25 6/27 7/2 * 13.00 19.70 13.30

156.00 121.60 34.40

Estimates are italicized

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: -100.60

R = Reopening

* The June two and five-year note auctions settle on July 2. As a result, that borrowing is counted as part of the July-September 

quarter's net cash raised. The March two and five-year auctions settled in April and thereby are part of this quarter's cash flow.
256 La. 368

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Melvin SHAW.

No. 50665.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: William F. Wessel applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. We find no error in the ruling complained of.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Andrew J. SCOTT v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53842.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1973.

In re: Andrew J. Scott, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. On the facts disclosed at the evidentiary hearing, there is no merit to this application.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deshawn ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-1457.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 20, 2002.

Decided Aug. 20, 2002.

Before BAUER, KANNE, EVANS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

DeShawn Elliott pleaded guilty to possession of nine ounces of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 844, and was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. Elliott filed a timely notice of appeal, but his attorney has moved to withdraw because he is unable to identify a nonfrivolous ground for appeal. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief is facially adequate, and because Elliott did not respond to his attorney’s motion to withdraw, *see*Cir. R. 51(b), we limit our review of the record to the potential issues addressed by counsel, *United States v. Tabb,*125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir.1997).

At the time of his cocaine violation, Elliott was serving probation on an unrelated state offense. Shortly after his arrest, however, the state revoked his probation, and Elliott began serving the resulting state-imposed sentence. According to Elliott, the issuance of a federal detainer on the cocaine violation prolonged his detention because it rendered him ineligible to participate in the state’s work release program.

Counsel now considers whether Elliott could argue that the district court should have reduced his federal sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), to credit him with the time he spent in state detention. But Elliott’s days in state custody were credited against the unrelated state sentence, and § 3585(b) expressly excludes such time from also being counted towards his federal sentence. *See United States v. Ross,*219 F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir.2000). Moreover, because Elliott waived this argument at his sentencing hearing by conceding that his federal sentence should not run concurrent to his state-imposed term, *see*U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment, (n.6), such a claim would be frivolous.

Counsel next considers whether Elliott could challenge the district court’s decision *13to deny his motion for downward departure under U.S.S.G § 5K2.0, and correctly concludes that such an argument would also be frivolous. Generally we lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s decision to deny a discretionary sentence departure. *See United States v. Lovaas,*241 F.3d 900, 902 (7th Cir.2001). Only if the district court refuses to depart downward because it concludes that it lacks the legal authority may we review its decision. *See United States v. Zaragoza,*117 F.3d 342, 345 (7th Cir.1997). Here the district explained that it had the authority to depart but exercised its discretion and declined to do so. Accordingly we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
#### Eugene SCHWALLENBERG, Sr., Petitioner, v. FERRIGNO REALTY et al., Respondents.

No. 42774.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.