alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CNP_Exhibit 10(s)_12.31.2013






Exhibit 10(s) 


CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Summary of Certain Compensation Arrangements
of the Executive Chairman of the Board














The following is a summary of certain compensation arrangements payable to Milton Carroll, the Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of June 1, 2013:
		
	•
	An annual salary of $450,000 commencing June 1, 2013 and continuing thereafter until the earlier of May 31, 2016 or the termination of Mr. Carroll’s service as Executive Chairman of the Board and payable on a monthly or semi-monthly basis; and




		
	•
	An annual award of 30,000 shares of common stock to be made during the period commencing on June 1, 2013 and continuing until the earlier of May 31, 2016 or the termination of Mr. Carroll’s service as Executive Chairman of the Board, with each such award payable on June 1, 2013, June 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015, respectively. 




In February 2014, Mr. Carroll’s compensation arrangements were modified as follows:
		
	•
	Mr. Carroll’s annual base salary was increased to $600,000 effective as of January 1, 2014 and continuing thereafter until the termination of Mr. Carroll’s service as Executive Chairman of the Board or as otherwise modified by the Board;




		
	•
	Mr. Carroll was granted an award of 30,000 shares of common stock to be payable on June 1, 2016 contingent on his continued service as Chairman on that date; and




		
	•
	Mr. Carroll will receive a 2014 long term incentive compensation award under the Company’s long term incentive plan that will be allocated between performance shares and stock awards on the same basis as 2014 awards to be made to other executive officers, with an incentive compensation target for Mr. Carroll equal to 200% of base salary.
# Appendix 7: HYSPLIT Trajectories for Arlington, Franconia & 

# McMillan Res. Monitors by

GroupFigure 7A - 1 1 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington Group 1 Days (<= 0.078 ppm)

McMillan (110010043 ) Approximate Location

Franconia (510590030) Arlington (510130020)Figure 7A - 2 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington Group 2 Days (>=0.079 & <= 0.081 ppm)Figure 7A - 3 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington Group 3 Days (>=0.082 & <= 0.086 ppm)

Franconia 8/10/2010

– 0.082 ppmFigure 7A - 4 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington Group 4 Days (>=0.087 & <= 0.090 ppm)

Arlington 8/10/2010

– 0.088 ppmFigure 7A - 5 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington Group 5 Days (>= 0.091 ppm)

McMillan (110010043 )

Franconia (510590030) Arlington (510130020)Figure 7A - 6 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington 2006 - 2007 Group 1 Days (>=0.076 & <= 0.078)Figure 7A - 7 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington 2006 - 2007 Group 2 Days (>=0.079 & <= 0.081)Figure 7A - 8 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington 2006 - 2007 Group 3 Days (>=0.082 & <= 0.086)Figure 7A - 9 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington 2006 - 2007 Group 4 Days (>=0.087 & <= 0.090)Figure 7A - 10 McMillan, Franconia & Arlington 2006 - 2007 Group 5 Days (>=0.091)
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T JA M E S JE G A N G A G U G U N I, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71738 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 358- 447 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a m e s J e ga ngaG uguni , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of K e ny a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED MA R 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 71738 2 ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , R i ve ra v. Mukasey , 508 F . 3d 1271, 1274 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng be c aus e the i nc ons i s t e nc i e s r e ga r di ng the c i r c um s t anc e s of the D e c e m be r1993 a rr e s ta nd the l e ngth of

G uguni ’ s de t e nt i on f

ol l ow i ng tha ta rr e s tgo t o the he artof h is c la im . Se e L i v . A s h c r o ft , 378 F . 3d 959, 962- 64 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( a s l ong a s one of the i dent i fi ed grou nd s i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i alevi dence and go es t o the heart of the c l a i m , w e a r e bound t o a c c e ptthe a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng) . T he ag en cy p ro p erl y co n si d eredan drej ect edG u g u n i ’ s ex p l an at i o n s fo r th o se in c o n s is te n c ie s . Se e i d. a t 9 6 3 . I n the abs e nc e of

c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , G uguni ’ s a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). B e c aus e G uguni ’ s C A T c l a i m i s ba s e d on t e s t i m onythe a ge nc yf ound not c r e di bl e , a nd he poi nt s t o no othe re vi de nc e t o s how i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nothe w o u ldb e to rtu r e dif

h e is r e tu rn e dto K e n y a , h is C A T c la im f a ils . Se e i d. at 1156- 57. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 

### 07629 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 07629\07629_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07629\07629_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### 07629\07629_ McIntosh certification statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 07629\07629_Checklist_WORKING FILE.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook 

### x 07629\07629_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07629\07629_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07629\07629_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07629\07629_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07629\07629_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07629\Supporting Documents\07629_McIntosh Diagram D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07629\Supporting Documents\07629_McIntosh Diagram D-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07629\Supporting Documents\07629_McIntosh Diagram WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 07629\Supporting Documents\07629_McIntosh Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 07629\Supporting Documents\07629_McIntosh Map-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 07629\Supporting Documents\07629_Transmittal letter - Georgia Power.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

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.

May 26, 2021

b0519 

# Order

Clerk May 26, 2021

162287

- 8

ADVISACARE HEALTHCARE

SOLUTIONS, d/b/a ADVISACARE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 162287

- 8

COA: 349756, 350221

Kent CC: 18

- 000792

- NF

AUTO

- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is con sidered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Sprint Corp Exhibit 10.79 2013






Exhibit 10.79


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement made and entered into as of October 2, 2012 by and between Sprint Nextel Corporation and JEFFREY D. HALLOCK (the “Agreement”) is entered into on this 8th day of January, 2013. Certain capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein.


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby amend the Agreement as follows:


		
	1.
	Effective as of November 6, 2012, Section 11(b) of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety by the following:


    
(b)     A “Competitor” is any entity doing business directly or indirectly (e.g., as an owner, investor, provider of capital or otherwise) in the United States including any territory of the United States (the “Territory”) that provides wireless products and/or services that are the same or similar to the wireless products and/or services that are currently being provided at the time of Executive’s termination or that were provided by the Company Group during the two-year period prior to the Executive’s separation from service with the Company Group.


In all other respects, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall remain the same. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by an officer pursuant to the authority of its Board, and the Executive has executed this Amendment, as of the date set forth above.




SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION                    EXECUTIVE




/s/ Sandra Price                            /s/ Jeffrey D. Hallock
By: Sandra J. Price,                             JEFFREY D. HALLOCK
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
# PET-ERSBURG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
January28, 2013 Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and DomesticAnalysis Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAve., S.E. Washington D.C. 20590 .. · ... -:

--.. i**-~**

Re: Continuation ofAlaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cor

# -L. Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 Vov; Dear Mr. DeVany: This letter is to express strong support forthe selection ofAlaska Airlines to continue to provide essential air service to our community. Alaska's service connects SoutheastAlaska passengers to one or more major communities of interest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan orSeattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit from its marketing relationships with other carriers. The passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that other carriers simply cannot provide. Further, Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance Technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products to dependably reach the community. Simply put, Alaska Airlines' service is critical to the economicwell being ofourcommunity and we support their application to provide Essential Air Service to Southeast Alaska. Sincerely,

# Sally~ Executive Director Petersburg Chamber ofCommerce



### P.O. Box 649 • Petersburg, Alaska 99833 907•772•3646 Email: pcoc@alaska.com www.petersburg.org
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rochell Blow, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin R. Weissberg, J.), rendered June 13, *3671989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 2 to 6 years on the assault and second degree weapon possession counts and 1 to 3 years on the remaining weapon count, unanimously affirmed.

Complainant was shot by defendant following an altercation on the stoop of their building in which defendant argued that members of complainant’s family were blocking his ingress and egress. Defendant in a written statement admitted the shooting but did not refer to the fact that he had been drinking on the night of the incident.

Defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly suggested in summation that his defense of intoxication had been concocted by defendant and his lawyer and that the prosecutor further deliberately misstated the evidence of intoxication to bolster the claim of fabrication. However, only one of the comments was objected to by means of an unelaborated general objection which was insufficient to alert the court to the claim of prosecutorial misconduct; thus these arguments were not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Berrios,*71 NY2d 905) and we decline to reach it. Were we to reach it, a review of the record shows that the summation was a fair response to arguments raised in the defense summation. A prosecutor is permitted wide latitude in commenting upon the evidence presented and the inferences that can be drawn therefrom. *(People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396.)

Defendant also contends that his sentence was excessive. However, the sentence imposed was less than the maximum permitted, and the court properly considered defendant’s age and background as well as the seriousness of the injuries caused to complainant, and we do not find the sentence excessive. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.) Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex Gordon, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Brien, J.), rendered November 30, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutor made statements on summation which denigrated the credibility of the defense witness. Since the defendant did not object to any statements made by the prosecutor during his summation, the defendant’s claim is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, it was not error for the prosecutor to comment on the credibility of the defense witness since defense counsel had raised her credibility as an issue during his summation *(see, People v Torres,*121 AD2d 663, 664). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Garth K. Galloway, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.), rendered September 8, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

We reject defendant’s assertion that the prison sentence he received of 4 to 8 years as a second felony offender was harsh and excessive. The sentence was in accord with the plea bargain agreement and was well within the statutory limits *(see, People v Mackey,*136 AD2d 780, *lv denied*71 NY2d 899). Given defendant’s criminal record and the fact that the plea was in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment, we find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed by County Court *(see, People v Dean,*155 AD2d 774, *lv denied*75 NY2d 812).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Scott Pollicino, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated October 30, 1989, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim *(see, Matter of Mazzilli v City of New York,*115 AD2d 604). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER MICHAEL PALMER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

GLENN A. SAVONA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15486

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-08209-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2012** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Peter Michael Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of

process for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. We have

FILED

SEP 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15486

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ferdik

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to comply with court

orders); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (failure to

prosecute). We vacate and remand.

The district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action where there

was no prejudice to defendants, the public interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation was not implicated because the case had commenced just over two

months prior to the dismissal, and the case had not been unreasonably delayed. See

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423 (listing factors to guide the court’s decision whether

to dismiss for failure to prosecute). 

We decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal, including

Palmer’s challenge to the district court’s order directing service of process by the

U.S. Marshal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.

2004) (noting general rule that courts of appeal will not consider arguments raised

for the first time on appeal). 

Palmer shall bear his own costs on appeal. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2014 - 0464 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2014 - SW - 002 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Michael S. Gross, Chief Executive Officer of
Solar Senior Capital Ltd., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Solar Senior Capital Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Dated this 31stday of July, 2012

|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/    MICHAEL S.
GROSS
|Michael S. Gross       
|