alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT  10.13

                                                       ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 3, 2001


                                  AMENDMENT OF
                           COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION
                      1985 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN


RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 6 of the Compaq Computer Corporation 1985
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), the Plan is amended effective as
of September 4, 2001, with respect to Options granted prior to September 1,
2001, as follows:


5.       Section 5(e) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following
         proviso to the first sentence of Section 5(e)(i):

                           ; provided, however that if, within one year
                           following an occurrence of a Change in Control, the
                           Optionee's employment is terminated in a Qualifying
                           Termination (as defined in subparagraph (v) below),
                           the Optionee shall have the right to exercise all
                           outstanding Options until the earlier of (1) the
                           third anniversary of such termination of employment
                           or (2) the date such Options would have expired had
                           it not been for such termination of employment. For
                           purposes of applying the immediately preceding
                           proviso with respect to treatment of Options in the
                           event of a Qualifying Termination, the definition of
                           a Change in Control set forth in Section 9.03 shall
                           be revised by substituting the phrase "a merger or
                           consolidation of the Company with any other
                           corporation is consummated" for the phrase "the
                           stockholders of the Company approve a merger or
                           consolidation of the Company with any other
                           corporation" in clause (iii) of said Section 9.03.

6.       Section 5(e)(v) is hereby amended by adding the following after the
         last sentence thereof:

                           For purposes of subparagraph (i) above, the term
                           "Qualifying Termination" shall have the meaning
                           ascribed to such term in the Optionee's individual
                           employment or severance agreement with the Company or
                           its Subsidiaries. If the Optionee is not a party to
                           an individual employment or severance agreement with
                           the Company or its Subsidiaries, the term "Qualifying
                           Termination" shall have the meaning ascribed to the
                           term "Qualified Termination" in the Compaq Computer
                           Corporation employee severance plan in which such
                           Optionee is eligible to participate.
Presidential Documents

647 

Federal Register 

Vol. 78, No. 2 

Thursday, January 3, 2013 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of December 21, 2012 

Federal Employee Pay Schedules and Rates That Are Set by 

Administrative Discretion 

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies 

On December 22, 2010, I issued a memorandum stating that the heads 

of executive departments and agencies should suspend any increases to 

any pay systems or pay schedules covering executive branch employees, 

and should forgo any general increases in covered employees’ rates of pay, 

that could otherwise take effect as a result of the exercise of administrative 

discretion during the period beginning on January 1, 2011, and ending 

on December 31, 2012. In light of section 114 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 112–175), I am hereby instructing the 

heads of executive departments and agencies that they should continue 

to adhere to this policy through March 27, 2013, the date after which 

statutory pay adjustments may be made pursuant to section 114 of Public 

Law 112–175. 

This memorandum shall be carried out to the extent permitted by law 

and consistent with executive departments’ and agencies’ legal authorities. 

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or 

benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any 

party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its 

officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall issue any necessary 

guidance on implementing this memorandum, and is also hereby authorized 

and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 21, 2012 

[FR Doc. 2013–00001 

Filed 1–2–13; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 6325–01 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with OB#1.EPS</GPH>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: In re Bridgette Massey 

Appellate case number: 01-14-00903-CV

Trial court case number: 1814

Trial court: 12th District Court of Grimes County

Date motion filed: January 30, 2015

Party filing motion: Relator

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Lloyd

Date: April 14, 2015
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 10, 2015

No. 04-15-00173-CR

IN RE Stephen Guy FOSTER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On March 27, 2015, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The 

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on April 10, 2015.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013CR8420, styled The State of Texas v. Stephen Guy Foster, pending in 

the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23466-23467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9344]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition University, DoD.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine 
Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the 
Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory 
committee meeting of the Defense Acquisition University Board of 
Visitors will take place.

DATES: Wednesday, May 9, 2012, from 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: DAU Mid-Atlantic Region, 23330 Cottonwood Pkwy, California, 
MD 20619.

[[Page 23467]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christen Goulding, Protocol Director, 
DAU, Phone: 703-805-5134, Fax: 703-805-5940, Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a3a8b2a9b3b4a5aeeea7afb5aca4a9aea780a4a1b5eeada9ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e4d465c475d5a4b400049415b424a4740496e4a4f5b00434742">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to report 
back to the Board of Visitors on continuing items of interest.

Agenda

    8:30 a.m. Welcome and approval of minutes.
    8:40 a.m. DAU Mid-Atlantic Region Highlights and update on 
Certification to Qualification.
    9:30 a.m. College of Contract Management.
    10:30 a.m. Services Acquisition.
    11:15 a.m. Recognition of Service.
    11:30 a.m. Open Forum Discussion.
    12 p.m. Adjourn.
    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b 
and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, 
this meeting is open to the public. However, because of space 
limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first 
served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. 
Christen Goulding at 703-805-5134. Committee's Designated Federal 
Officer or Point of Contact: Ms. Kelley Berta, 703-805-5412.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012-9344 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR ENRIQUE PENA-RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73171

Agency No. A098-980-511

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Enrique Pena-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

FILED

APR 13 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d

1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.

In denying Pena-Rodriguez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the

agency found Pena-Rodriguez failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future

persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their

decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077

(9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Further, the

BIA’s basis for rejecting Pena-Rodriguez’s family-based social group claim is

unclear. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand is

appropriate where basis for agency’s decision is unclear). Thus, we remand PenaRodriguez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if

any, of the foregoing decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)

(per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach Pena-Rodriguez’s remaining

challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims

at this time.

2 11-73171
Finally, with respect to CAT relief, the BIA rejected Pena-Rodriguez’s claim

without analysis. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2013)

(explaining the BIA reached CAT conclusion “[w]ithout analysis” and “failed to

state with sufficient particularity and clarity the reasons for this decision”) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, we remand for the BIA to analyze

Pena-Rodriguez’s CAT claim in light of the facts of his case. See Ventura, 537

U.S. at 16-18; Madrigal, 716 F.3d at 509-10.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

3 11-73171
Agricultural Livestock and Poultry Program

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258

G-116 Specification

December 3, 2020

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Revier Cattle Co. Black Angus Cow Program

G-116 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. Phenotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live Animal

Specification;

b. Classed as Cow carcasses only1;

c. U.S. Standard, Commercial, or Utility and have a minimum marbling score of Slight 01;

d. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height2

;

e. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle;

and

f. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures. 

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines (9 CFR 317.2 Labels: definition; required features) and QAD 

procedures. 

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service. 

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Livestock and Poultry Program

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258

G-116 Specification

December 3, 2020

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

___________________________________ 

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Standards and Specifications Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
#### Perilea GARVEY, Appellant, v. James S. GARVEY, Appellee.

No. 52108.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

Jan. 22, 1980.

Released for Publication by Order of Court of Appeals Feb. 21, 1980.

Miskovsky, Sullivan & Miskovsky by Don Cooke, Oklahoma City, for appellant,

Rinehart, Rinehart & Rinehart by Jim Hugh Rinehart, El Reno, for appellee.

REYNOLDS, Presiding Judge:

Perilea Garvey (Appellant) appeals only the property division and alimony provisions of the divorce decree that ended her 41⁄2 year marriage to James S. Garvey (Ap-pellee).

Both parties are in their 50’s. Prior to marriage each had accumulated substantial financial means. Appellee was employed as *619a truck driver. He also had income from 720 acres of farm land in Blaine County, oil leases, and a pawn shop in Texas. In 1977 his income from these sources was approximately $65,000. Appellant was a home economics teacher prior to marriage. She received income from 160 acres of farm land in Lincoln County and $76,000 in savings accounts.

The trial court divided the parties’ jointly acquired property as follows: Appellant was awarded a 1976 Lincoln Continental, the antiques, household goods, and furnishings acquired during the marriage, and a $300 checking account. Appellee was awarded three automobiles and all personal property and effects then in his possession.

The trial court awarded Appellee as his separate property the home in which he was born. Shortly after their marriage, Appel-lee’s mother deeded the Garvey family home, furniture and keepsakes to the parties in joint tenancy. Appellant contends that the trial'court abused its discretion in setting aside the home to Appellee as his separate property. We agree.

The Appellee’s mother deeded the Garvey family home to Appellee and Appellant as joint tenants. Appellant thereby acquired a specific interest in the property. In *Gist v. Gist,*Okl.App., 537 P.2d 460 (1975), this Court, citing *Shackelton v. Sherrard,*Okl., 385 P.2d 898 (1963), said:

> Absent any fraud or special agreement where the wife or husband knowingly agrees and consents to the conveyance being made to themselves as joint tenants, either is estopped to deny the tenancy of the other.

> * * * * * *

> Therefore, we hold that no part of the joint tenancy property of the parties could be considered as either the husband’s or wife’s separate property.

The trial court erred when it set aside the home to Appellee as his separate property.

The trial court awarded Appellant support alimony in the amount of $9,000 payable at $750 per month for one year. Appellant contends that this amount is insufficient.

The standard of review for an appellate court of an award of alimony is not the substitution of the appellate court’s judgment for that of the trial court, but whether there was an abuse of discretion.

The trial court’s award of alimony when viewed in light of all the evidence does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Reversed with directions to equitably divide the jointly acquired Garvey family home.

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

BOX and ROMANG, JJ., concur.
63%

15%

4%

8%

8% 2%

47%

3%

22%

1%

10%

3%

14%

United States Department of Agriculture

Organic Integrity Dashboard – 1/1/2021

 A quarterly review of National Organic Program (NOP) enforcement activities

Investigations & Inquiries by Fiscal Year

Many Hands Guard the Door Against Fraud

When tests by staff at the California State Organic Program and Washington State 

Department of Agriculture indicated a prohibited substance might be mixed in a

specialty fertilizer listed on the organic system plans of some organic operations in their 

states, they quickly coordinated to check the findings and issue a Stop Use Notice. Both 

states conducted repeated testing to verify the findings, which led to a quarantine of

the specialty fertilizer for violating state laws on the use of Diquat and Glyphosate. The 

USDA National Organic Program regulations also prohibit the use of both substances 

under 7 CFR §205.105. Neither may be used in organic production and handling. 

The states coordinated with National Organic Program staff to ensure all accredited certifiers were given notice of the

quarantines, so all organic system plans could be checked and operations notified. Certifiers are working with operations that may 

have been impacted to remove the adulterated fertilizer from the market and ensure the integrity of organic crops. 

For additional details on the National Organic Program visit www.ams.usda.gov/Organic. 

NOTES: Open cases are based on allegations, complaints and surveillance, and are not in themselves proof of wrongdoing. Administrative 

Actions are warnings/notices to businesses, often uncertified, and are critical in establishing that violators are aware of the rules, to support 

future enforcement action, if needed. 

390 Cases in Progress

As of 12/31/2020

448 Closed Cases by Outcome

12 Months ending 12/31/2020

Voluntary

Compliance

Referred for Criminal

Investigation

No Violation

Referred for

Investigation

Settlement, Civil 

Penalty, Appeal

Administrative Actions

Fraudulent Certificates Posted

Uncertified 

Operations Making

Organic Claims

Labelling Error

Prohibited Substance

Fraud

Prohibited Practice

Pesticide Residue

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Completed Investigations 127 279 260 285 390 360 470 335 413 448 83

Resolved Inquiries 30 197 248 386 87

New Investigations 183 278 215 411 548 508 395 370 374 391 62

Total Incoming 183 278 215 411 548 508 425 567 622 777 149

Percentage completed 69% 100% 121% 69% 71% 71% 118% 94% 106% 107% 114%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

*

* Fiscal year 2021 

numbers as of 

12/31/2020
1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27 th Floor


New York, NY 10036





November 10, 2017





OHA Investment Corporation


1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27 th Floor


New York, NY 10036





Re: Incentive Fee Waiver





Dear Members of the Board of Directors of OHA Investment Corporation:





Reference is hereby made to the Investment Advisory Agreement (the “ Agreement ”) dated September 30, 2014, by and between Oak Hill Advisors, L.P. (the “ Adviser ”) and OHA Investment Corporation (the “ Company ”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.





The Adviser hereby agrees to waive any Incentive Fee that would otherwise be paid by the Company to the Adviser under Section 5.3 of the Agreement relating to fiscal years ending December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018.  Thereafter, such waiver may be extended solely by means of a written agreement between both parties.





OAK HILL ADVISORS, L.P.


By: Oak Hill Advisors GenPar, L.P., its general partner





By: Oak Hill Advisors MGP, Inc., its managing general partner





By: /s/ Michael Blumstein


Name: Michael Blumstein


Title: Authorized Signatory





Your signature below acknowledges acceptance of this Agreement:


OHA INVESTMENT CORPORATION


By: /s/ Steven Wayne


Name: Steven Wayne


Title: President





Oak Hill Advisors, L.P.     1114 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor    New York, New York 10036    T(212) 326 1500
 
 www.oakhilladvisors.com
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust 2023-3  (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Computershare Trust Company, N.A.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 4, 2024