alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.43


AMENDMENT TO THE A.M. CASTLE & CO.


SUPPLEMENTAL 401(k) SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN


AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2009








Pursuant to rights reserved under Section 5.1 of the A.M. Castle & Co. Supplemental 401(k) Savings And Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2009 (the “Plan”), A.M. Castle & Co. amends the Plan as follows:





Section 3.2(a) of the Plan is amended by deleting the phrase “immediately preceding the Plan Year”, effective January 1, 2015.





This Amendment has been executed this 8 th day of October, 2015.








A.M. CASTLE & CO.ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE/s/ Jeffrey S. TorfBy:Jeffrey S. TorfTitle:Administration Committee Chairman











E- 13
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jerold L. Haft, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 29, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, *inter alia,*that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the *951finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his job because he had been making harassing telephone calls to his supervisor and that his actions constituted misconduct sufficient to warrant the denial of his application for unemployment insurance benefits *(see, Matter of Levick [Ross],*53 AD2d 950, *appeal dismissed,*42 NY2d 909, *lv denied*42 NY2d 811; *Matter of Martin [Catherwood]*33 AD2d 815). To the extent that claimant’s version of the facts differed from the employer’s version, this presented only a question of fact which was within the exclusive province of the Board to resolve *(see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the*Aged— *Roberts],*113 AD2d 997). Additionally, there is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits *(see, Matter of Muller [Levine],*50 AD2d 1005, *lv denied*40 NY2d 806).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN


 EXHIBIT 10.2 
  
 BURLINGTON
NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION 
  
 AMENDMENT OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE 
 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 
  
 Recommend approval of the following resolutions:

  
 WHEREAS, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “Supplemental Plan”) to provide pension benefits to the salaried employees of the Company and certain of its affiliated
companies; 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Supplemental Plan, the Company provides certain supplemental pension
benefits as set forth on Schedule A to the Supplemental Plan; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company wishes to provide Mr. Matthew K. Rose,
President and Chief Executive Officer, with certain pension benefits as described in the attached Exhibit A-1, by amending the Supplemental Plan to provide for such benefits; 
  
 NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that Mr. Matthew K. Rose be provided with supplemental pension benefits calculated in the manner described in Exhibit A-1; 
  
 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Vice President-Human Resources is authorized and directed to prepare a Retirement Benefit Agreement for Mr. Rose on
substantially the terms and conditions indicated in Exhibit A-2; 
  
 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Supplemental Plan be amended by
adding “Retirement Benefit Agreement between Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and Mr. Matthew K. Rose” at the end of Schedule A; 
  
 FURTHER RESOLVED, that each of the Secretary and other officers of the Company are authorized and empowered by and on behalf and in the name of the Company to do and perform, or cause to be done and performed, all
such acts, deeds and things and to make, execute and deliver, or cause to be made, executed and delivered, all such agreements, undertakings, documents, instruments or certificates, as each such officer may deem necessary or appropriate to
effectuate or carry out fully the purpose and intent of the foregoing resolutions. 
  
 Compensation and Development Committee 
 Fort Worth, Texas 
 April 18, 2002 
 

 E-4
O pinion filed February 1 6 , 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____ _ ______ 

### No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 039

- C R

_____ __ ____


### RANDALL SHAYNE JUSTICE , Appellan t

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. CR21456

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Randall Shayne Justice

, has filed a motion to dismiss t h is appeal

. In the motion, Appellant asks this court to withdraw his notice of appeal and dismiss

t h e appeal. The motion is si gned by both Appellant and hi s counsel in accordance

with T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.2

. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

February 1 6 , 2017 PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J

. , and Bailey, J.
[No. 37730.

Department Two.

August 5, 1965.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ray Pierre, *Appellant.****

*Burkey, Marsico & Rovai,*by *Robert L. Rovai*and *Steele & McGoffin,*by *Keith D. McGoffin,*for appellant (Appointed counsel for appeal).

*John G. McCutcheon*and *Schuyler J. Witt,*for respondent.

*

Reported in 404 F.2d 788.

Per Curiam.

The appellant, an enrolled member of a British Columbia Indian tribe, was convicted of the crime of carnal knowledge in the superior Court of Pierce County. The crime was alleged to have been committed on January 16, 1964, and the proof indicated that the situs of the crime was on property owned by non-Indians but within the boundaries of the original Puyallup Indian reservation.

By this appeal, the appellant questions the jurisdiction of the state court, contending that exclusive jurisdiction lies with the federal government.

In our opinion, the superior court clearly had jurisdiction under Laws of 1963, chapter 36, § 1, p. 346 (RCW 37.12.010-.060) wherein the State of Washington assumed

> *704[Cjriminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands within this state in accordance with the consent of the United States given by the act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd Congress, 1st Session), but such assumption of jurisdiction shall not apply to Indians when on their tribal lands or allotted lands within an established Indian reservation and held in trust by the United States

The land upon which the crime is alleged to have been committed does not come within the exception noted in the statute.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 3b(1)

                             State of North Carolina
                      Department of the Secretary of State

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                CP&L ENERGY, INC.

Pursuant to Section 55-10-06 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the
undersigned corporation hereby submits the following Articles of Amendment for
the purpose of amending its Articles of Incorporation.

1.   The name of the corporation is CP&L Energy, Inc.

2.   The text of each amendment adopted is as follows:

          Article I of the Articles of Incorporation shall be amended and
          restated to read "The name of the Corporation is Progress Energy, Inc.
          (the 'Corporation')."

3.   The date of adoption of the amendment was June 15, 2000.

4.   The amendment was approved by shareholder action, and such shareholder
     approval was obtained as required by Chapter 55 of the North Carolina
     General Statutes.

5.   These articles will be effective upon filing.

This the 4th day of December, 2000
         ---        --------

                                                    CP&L ENERGY, INC.


                                                    By: /s/ William D. Johnson
                                                        ----------------------
                                                    William D. Johnson
                                                    Executive Vice President and
                                                    Corporate Secretary
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE III

ENHANCED COOPERATION

ENHANCED COOPERATION

Article 326

(ex Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a TEC)

(ex Articles 27a

e

b

a

Any enhanced cooperation shall comply with the Treaties and Union law.

Such cooperation shall not undermine the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion. It shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States, nor shall it distort competition between them.

---
##### 



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 Annual report of Entrx Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Wayne W. Mills, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | i.  |  | The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | ii. |  | The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Wayne W. Mills

Wayne W. Mills
Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2003
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 5

SECTION 5

THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 257

(ex Article 225a TEC)

(ex Article 225a

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish specialised courts attached to the General Court to hear and determine at first instance certain classes of action or proceeding brought in specific areas. The European Parliament and the Council shall act by means of regulations either on a proposal from the Commission after consultation of the Court of Justice or at the request of the Court of Justice after consultation of the Commission.

The regulation establishing a specialised court shall lay down the rules on the organisation of the court and the extent of the jurisdiction conferred upon it.

Decisions given by specialised courts may be subject to a right of appeal on points of law only or, when provided for in the regulation establishing the specialised court, a right of appeal also on matters of fact, before the General Court.

The members of the specialised courts shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the ability required for appointment to judicial office. They shall be appointed by the Council, acting unanimously.

The specialised courts shall establish their Rules of Procedure in agreement with the Court of Justice. Those Rules shall require the approval of the Council.

Unless the regulation establishing the specialised court provides otherwise, the provisions of the Treaties relating to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the provisions of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall apply to the specialised courts. Title I of the Statute and Article 64 thereof shall in any case apply to the specialised courts.

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 12733 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:16

- cv
- 00040

- JRH

- GRS

HAMILTON KINARD, BRIT NEE KINARD,
Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

versus JOHN GALLINA, Individually and as Agent of Purple Heart Homes, Inc., DALE BEATTY, Individually and as Agent of Purple Heart Home s, Inc., ASHLEY DOANE, Individually and as Agent of Purple Heart Homes, Inc., JIM LONCAR, Individually and as Agent of Purple Heart Homes, Inc., PURPLE HEART HOMES, INC.,
Defendants

- Appellees.

Case: 17-12733 Date Filed: 03/05/2018 Page: 1 of 32 ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ (March 5, 2018)
Before MARCUS , JORDAN , an d ROSENBAUM Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Hamilton and Britnee Kinard , represented by counsel, appeal the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice their action for breach of contract, intentional tort, and stubborn litigiousness against Purple Heart Homes, Inc. and a
number of individual defendants

. After review, w e affirm. The Kinards’ brief contains only four paragraphs of argument, and those paragraphs contain only general legal principles. The brief does not attempt to apply those principles to the allegations in the complaint , nor does it explain why
the dist rict court erred in concluding that the complaint failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
The Kinards have abandon ed their claims because they have fail ed to provide appropriate argument s as to why they are entitled to relief

. See Sapuppo v.
Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without suppor ting arguments

Case: 17-12733 Date Filed: 03/05/2018 Page: 2 of 33 and autho rity.”). S ee also Fed . R. App. P. 28(a)(8) (“The appellant’s brief must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). We therefore
affirm

. AFFIRM ED. Case: 17-12733 Date Filed: 03/05/2018 Page: 3 of 3
TDCJ Offender Details Page 1 of2 

[iii TDCJ Home - New Offender Search 

Offender Information Details 

I R,eturn to$earch list , , J 

SID Number: 

TDCJ Number: 

Name: 

Race: 

Gender: 

008: 

Maximum Sentence Date: 

Current Facility: 

Pr?jected Release Date: 

Parole Eligibility Date: 

Offender Visitation Eligible: 

08017251 

01744663 

CLARK,JERAMIAH 

B 

M 

1990-09-17 

2023-03-18 

FERGUSON 

2023-03-18 

2017-03-17 

YES 

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day 

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and • 

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit. 

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: 

Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. 

Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Scheduled Release Location: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Parole Review Information 

Offense History: 

Offense Offense Sentence County Case No. Sentence (YY -MMDate Date DO) 

2011-03-18 I AGG ROBBERYow 2011-09-29 HARRIS 129949901010 12-00-00 

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=08017251 511112015
##### 



BRIDGFORD FOODS CORPORATION

EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

|                                                      |  |                            
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                    |  | State in which Incorporated
|                                                      |  |                            
|Bridgford Marketing Company                           |  | California                 
|Bridgford Meat Company                                |  | California                 
|Bridgford Food Processing Corporation                 |  | California                 
|Bridgford Food Processing of Texas, L.P.**            |  | Texas                      
|A.S.I. Corporation                                    |  | California                 
|Bridgford Distributing Company of
Delaware (inactive) |  | Delaware                   
|American Ham Processors, Inc.* (inactive)             |  | Delaware                   
|Bert Packing Company (inactive)                       |  | Illinois                   
|Moriarty Meat Company (inactive)                      |  | Illinois                   

* - No shares have been issued.
** - Limited Partnership.
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: _____6-3-06___________________

Subject: Sunset Review - 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop 

production 

Chair: Kevin O’Rell 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: _XXXXXX_ 

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

See attached Recommendation for Renewal of Sodium Silicate as Synthetic substances allowed 

for use in organic crop production on 205.601, category use (l) as floating agents in post-harvest 

handling. 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Gerald Davis Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Yes – 10 

No – 1 

Abstain – 1 

Absent – 2 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and NOP):

NOSB Sunset Material Vote 

Response by the NOP:
 NOSB- Crops Committee 

Sodium Silicate - Sunset Recommendation 

Final NOSB Recommendation 4/20/2006 

I. List: 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production 

II. Category Use 

(l). As floating agents in post-harvest handling. 

III. Committee Summary: The only comment on sodium silicate received during the 

sunset comment period in August 2005 questioned whether the material was being 

used by anyone. The commentator (a certifier from the upper mid-west) stated that 

they had never been asked about the material by any fruit growers and suggested that 

it be removed from the list. The material was deferred in order to find out if the 

material is still used by any organic operations. Subsequent Crops Committee contact 

with the Washington State Organic Program, a certifier in the largest tree fruit 

growing region in the US, discovered that it is used as a floatation agent by 

approximately 2/3 of their certified growers who use these types of materials. The 

other 1/3 is currently using lignin sulfonate. The actual number of growers in their 

program that are using either material was not disclosed. The contact at the 

Washington Program stated that these growers would like to continue using the 

materials, which are used to float pears. 

IV. Committee Recommendation: 

Recommendation based on comments received- 205.601(l) 

The Crops Committee recommends renewing the following material to the use 

category. 

(l) As floating agents in post-harvest handling 

(2) Sodium silicate 

 

Motion: Rigoberto Delgado Second: Jeff Moyer 

Committee vote: 3-1 Absent- Ostiguy 

 NOSB vote: 

Motion: Gerald Davis Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Yes – 10 

No – 1 

Abstain – 1 

Absent – 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JASON O'NEILL,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 40 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# L_2012112EN.01009501.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

FINAL ACT

FINAL ACT

III.   EXCHANGE OF LETTERS

between the European Union and the Republic of Croatia on an information and consultation procedure for the adoption of certain decisions and other measures to be taken during the period preceding accession

Sir,

I have the honour to refer to the question concerning an information and consultation procedure for the adoption of certain decisions and other measures to be taken during the period preceding the accession of your country to the European Union which was raised in the framework of the accession negotiations.

I hereby confirm that the European Union is able to agree to such a procedure, in the terms set out in the Annex to this letter, which could be applied in respect of the Republic of Croatia as of the date on which the Accession Conference declares that the accession negotiations have been finally concluded.

I would be obliged if you could confirm that your Government is in agreement with the contents of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

---
ACCEPTED

06-14-00094-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

4/13/2015 11:55:53 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/13/2015 11:55:53 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification of the President

 

Pursuant to 18 US.C. Section, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

I, Bowen S. Diehl, President of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

 

|  | 1. |  | The Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2017, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2017 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|                     |   |                                                  |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  June 1, 2017 | By:    | /s/ Bowen S. Diehl                                    |
|                     |   | Bowen S. Diehl

President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----