alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO GRANDFATHERED VICE PRESIDENT SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT("Amendment"), dated effective as of August    , 2007 (the
"Effective Date"), is made by and between Forest Oil Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"),
and                        ("Executive").

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have heretofore entered into that certain Severance Agreement
dated                        ,            ,
as amended (the "Severance Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Severance Agreement in certain respects;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual agreements set forth herein, the Company and Executive
hereby agree, effective as of the Effective Date, that the Severance Agreement shall be amended as hereafter provided:

1.     Paragraph 1(c)
of the Severance Agreement shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor:



---







2.     The
following new Paragraph 1(c)(1) shall be added immediately after Paragraph 1(c) of the Severance Agreement:



3.     The
following shall be added to the end of Paragraph 1(f) of the Severance Agreement:



4.     The
following shall be added to the end of each of Paragraph 3(b) and Paragraph 4(b) of the Severance Agreement:



5.     The
following shall be added immediately after the word "due" in Paragraph 5 of the Severance Agreement:



6.     The
following shall be added immediately after the first sentence of Paragraph 6 of the Severance Agreement:



2

---



7.     The
following shall be added to the end of Paragraph 7(b) of the Severance Agreement:



8.     The
heading of Paragraph 7(i) of the Severance Agreement shall be changed to "Release, Covenant Not to Compete or Solicit, and Delayed Payment Restriction",
the current text of Paragraph 7(i) of the Severance Agreement shall be redesignated as subparagraph (1) of Paragraph 7(i) and the following new subparagraph
(2) shall be added to the end of Paragraph 7(i) of the Severance Agreement:



9.     This
Amendment (a) shall supersede any prior agreement between the Company and Executive relating to the subject matter of this Amendment and (b) shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and any successors to the Company and all persons lawfully claiming under Executive.

10.   As
amended hereby, the Severance Agreement is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.

3

---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the            day
of                        , 2007,
effective as of the Effective Date.

| |  | FOREST OIL CORPORATION
| |  | ----------------------
| |  | By:                   
| |  |                       
| |  |                       
| |  | EXECUTIVE             

4

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.3**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifiesthat this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedin the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the issuer.

Date:                    May10, 2007
|   | Garry P. Herdler                                     |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Garry P. Herdler                                     |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 70

To provide for the termination of the Superconducting Super Collider project.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. HOAGLAND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

A BILL

To provide for the termination of the Superconducting Super

Collider project.

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 ‘‘Superconducting Super

5 Collider Termination Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—

8 (1) the Federal budget deficit was

9 $290,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1992;

10 (2) outlays for net interest on the national debt

11 have grown at nearly twice the rate of the Gross Do-
2

•HR 70 IH

1 mestic Product since 1986, when the

2 Superconducting Super Collider was first proposed;

3 (3) reductions in Federal spending are nec4 essary to reduce the budget deficit, reduce the na5 tional debt, and improve the economy;

6 (4) the Department of Energy’s Office of

7 Superconducting Super Collider has projected the

8 cost of the Superconducting Super Collider to be

9 $8,250,000,000;

10 (5) the Department of Energy’s Energy Re11 search Review Committee has projected the cost of

12 the Superconducting Super Collider to be

13 $8,400,000,000;

14 (6) the Department of Energy’s High Energy

15 Physics Advisory Panel has projected the cost of the

16 Superconducting Super Collider to be

17 $8,900,000,000;

18 (7) the Department of Energy’s Independent

19 Cost Estimate Group has projected the cost of the

20 Superconducting Super Collider to be

21 $11,800,000,000, including $1,200,000,000 for de22 tectors which were not included in the other esti23 mates; and
3

•HR 70 IH

1 (8) the Federal Government does not have the

2 resources at this time to fund the Superconducting

3 Super Collider.

4 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION.

5 No Federal funds may be used or obligated for the

6 Superconducting Super Collider project, except funds nec7 essary to terminate the project.

Æ
263 La. 365

#### TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX DISTRIBUTING CORP. v. LAKESIDE THEATRES, INCORPORATED.

No. 52934.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1972.

In re: Lakeside Theatres, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 267 So.2d 225.

Application denied; the judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


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 Farrel Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rolf K Liebergesell,
Chief Executive Officer 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
to the best of my 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 results of operations of the Company
     as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



/s/ Rolf K Liebergesell
--------------------------------------------
Rolf K Liebergesell
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003







                                                                              20
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4676

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

KENNETH N. GIBSON, III, a/k/a KG, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (5:03-cr-00154-1) 

Submitted: December 23, 2008 Decided: January 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. 

Miller, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Kenneth N. Gibson, III, appeals the district court’s 

judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 

fourteen months’ imprisonment. Gibson claims the evidence was 

insufficient to show that he violated the terms of supervised 

release. We affirm. 

 This court reviews a district court’s revocation of 

supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the court fails or refuses to exercise 

its discretion or when its exercise of discretion is flawed by 

an erroneous legal or factual premise. James v. Jacobson, 6 

F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). The district court need only 

find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a 

preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) 

(2006). Factual determinations informing the conclusion that a 

violation occurred are reviewed for clear error. See United 

States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir. 2003); United 

States v. Whalen, 82 F.3d 528, 532 (1st Cir. 1996). 

 Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 

relevant facts must be shown to be more likely true than not. 

See United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004). 

There is clear error if the court, after reviewing the record, 

is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 

2 
3 

has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 

470 U.S. 564, 573 (1984) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). It is not enough for the court to believe it would 

have decided the case differently. Id.

 We find the evidence was more than sufficient to 

support the district court’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.E

                            FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK

                                CLOSING STATEMENT

For: FLORAFAX INTERNATIONAL, INC.
     8075 20TH ST.
     VERO BEACH, FLORIDA  32966

DATE OF CLOSING:  JANUARY 16, 1998



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNT OF LOAN                                                    $5,000,000.00

CLOSING COSTS:
--------------
Commitment Fee:                                                      $12,500.00
Out of State Closing Fee:                                               $450.00

UCC FEES:
---------
       Pre Search                                                        $35.00
       UCC-1 Filing                                                      $37.60
       Post Search:                                                      $10.00


TOTAL CLOSING COSTS:                                                 $13,032.60

I hereby approve the above statement and authorize disbursement in accordance
with the same.



                          FLORAFAX INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                          By:/s/ Peggy O'Neal
         Corporate           -------------------------------
         Seal                Peggy O'Neal, Vice President

The foregoing is a correct account of the funds received by us in connection
with this transaction.

                          FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK



                          By:/s/ Nancy Beckwith
         Corporate           --------------------------------
         Seal                Nancy Beckwith, Vice President

Access #28890


                                                                               




                                  Page 1 of 1
#### Victor BUSSIE et ux. v. Mrs. Blanche Revere LONG et al.

No. 54250.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: Blanche Revere Long, James R. Leake, Leo J. Theriot, and the Louisiana Tax Commission, applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 286 So.2d 689.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion that writ should be granted.

CALOGERO, J.,

I dissent from refusal to grant this writ believing that the issues presented in this application are of such importance as to warrant review by the State’s highest court.
*

The Honorable James Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by

designation.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 05a0126p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

YERVIN K. BARNETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

N

No. 04-5252

Filed: March 9, 2005 

Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; MARTIN, Circuit Judge; and GWIN, District Judge.*

_________________

ORDER _________________

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 35(c), less than a majority of the Judges of this Court in

regular active service having voted to grant the request of a member of the Court for rehearing of

this case en banc, the request for rehearing has been referred to the original panel.

The panel concludes that the issues raised in the request were fully considered upon the

original submission and decision of the case. Accordingly, rehearing is denied.

The appellee’s motion for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing en banc is

denied.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

/s/ Leonard Green ___________________________________ Clerk

1
#### Annette R. SCHIFF, Appellant, v. Simon J. SCHIFF, Appellee.

No. 70-999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1971.

Milton M. Ferrell, Miami, for appellant.

Aronovitz, Silver & Booth, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The parties to this cause were divorced in 1959. The original support order for the minor child came on for review before this court and resulted in an opinion found in Schiff v. Schiff, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 295. Some ten years later, the appellant filed a motion for contempt, alleging ar-rearages in child support and filed a petition for an increase in such. By appropriate pleadings, the appellee sought to terminate support payments all of which resulted in the chancellor discharging any contempt proceedings against the appellee, finding him in arrears in the sum of $1,-935.00, ordering him to pay $1,000.00 immediately and the balance at the rate of $5.00 per month, and terminating all support payments as of a date certain.

We affirm the chancellor’s order relative to the contempt proceedings, but we find no basis in the record for the order cutting off the support payments and therefore reverse same and reinstate them at the rate of $20.00 per week. We modify the $5.00 installment payments on the arrear-ages for support from a monthly basis to a a weekly basis.

This cause is remanded to the chancellor for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part with directions.
Increases in Airport Design Standards

EXHIBIT

I J7lffl J?

T8bh I-I. IJIcn:aes iD airport daip It1mdanIJ atIIlOdaW· with•• upgndeiD ••

rtnt ClO1ltpodltbt (aircraft approlIC!Il ~) of tile airpod ~ code

A-I to B-1 No ~ iDairport .desip standards.

B-1 !Ito CI Jnc:reue iD.c:muwm4 CODlJIIODCDl.Rcfer to pangraph203. b.

lncrease in .nmway separation staadaEds. Refer to cablet 2.-1 aDd 2",2.

~ m RPZ dhnensiaDs. IWv to table.2-4 aDd appcnd.tx 14. paragraph S.b.

tD::teaIe inOPZ dilJlCllllioM. Refer to paragraph 306.

l:Dcrasc inl'tlllWa)' daip s:taadards. Relet to tables 3-1. 3-2• .add 3-3.

fDm:a.te in ·surface gndiem stIIIdm'ds. Reter to p.aragnpb m.

Incroase in ~ sidq; stmdmds. Refer to appeDdix 2. ~ S.

B-1to C-I hx:reasein ~c:ompoDeDt. •• to p.arasrIpb 203.b.

IrJmeas,e itt maway separalioa standards. •.• to cables 2·1 and 2-2.

Increase itt R.PZ dimeDIiou. RefW to table 2-4 .md appe:adJx 14, paraarapb S.b.

IDc:nasein lWlWay designstaDdardl. WeI' to .1.3-1,3-2, aDd 3-3.

Inaeasc itt surface aradiem stIDdards. •• to ~ 502.
UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                             _______________________

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                             _______________________

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):

                                 October 2, 2008

                       Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                                      Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

             000-24498                              65-0190407
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Commission File Number)         (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      325 John H. McConnell Blvd, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio         43215
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                    (Zip Code)

Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:   (614) 255-3333

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 8.01.    Other Events
----------   --------------------------------------------

          As of September 30, 2008, preliminary assets under management totaled
$5.548 billion.  Following is a summary as of September 30, 2008 (in millions):

				         Equity    Fixed Income	    Total
Individually Managed Accounts 	        $ 1,244	      $   71       $ 1,315
Mutual Funds 			          3,754	         110         3,864
Private Investment Funds	   	    369            0           369
                                        -------       ------       -------
Total			       	        $ 5,367       $  181       $ 5,548

Investment Strategy
-------------------
Small and Small-Mid Cap         $    582
Large Cap and Select		   1,422
Long-Short		           3,363
Strategic and Fixed Income     	     181
				--------
Total			           5,548


                                    SIGNATURE
                                    ---------

     Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf
by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                        DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.


Date: October 2, 2008	                    By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                            Officer and Secretary
DENIED and Opinion Filed January 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01554-CV

IN RE LEVY PREMIUM FOOD SERVICE, LLC D/B/A LEVY RESTAURANTS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06335-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Before the Court is relator’s December 19, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus. In its 

petition, relator requests this Court to vacate the trial court’s October 15, 2019 order denying 

relator’s motion to transfer and to direct the trial court to enter an order transferring this case to 

the 160th Judicial District Court, where an earlier suit relator contends arises out of the same 

transaction or occurrence is pending. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show both 

that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relators have no adequate appellate 

remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After 

reviewing the petition and mandamus record, we conclude relator has failed to show it is entitled 

to the relief requested.
–2–

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) 

(the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought).

 

191554F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
#### Lois Hudson McLEOD v. Mrs. Donnie BOONE et al.

No. 45668.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 9, 1970.

J. Hoy Hathorn, Henry C. Wood, Louisville, for appellant.

Brunini, Everett, Grantham & Quin, Allen T. Akin, G. Gilmore Martin, Vicksburg, for appellees.

JONES, Justice:

This case originated in the Chancery Court of Tallahatchie County where appellant sought to establish herself as an heir of Colley J. Hudson, deceased. After hearing the evidence, the chancellor was of the opinion, and found, that she had not sustained the burden of proof and dismissed her petition, from which dismissal she appeals.

The facts are in conflict, and while the appellant introduced some facts from which one might believe that she is an heir, the testimony for the defendants was in direct contradiction. The chancellor accepted the defendants’ version, the proof of which was sufficient to sustain the decree. We cannot say that the chancellor was manifestly wrong; therefore the case is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and BRADY, INZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2020

s1124 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2020

161422

VECTREN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

CORP., successor

- in

- interest to MINNESOTA

LIMITED, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161422

COA: 345462

Ct of Claims: 17

- 000107

- MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu

of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment and we

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals to address the plaintiff’s arguments regarding

the proper method for calculating the business tax due under the statutory formula. See

MCL 208.1201; MCL 208.1301(2). This foundational issue must be addressed before

dete rmining that MCL 208.1309 requires application of an alternative method of

apportionment.

We do not retain jurisdiction.