alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.72**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO**

**THE 2003 AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY PARTICIPATION PLAN OF**

**SCPIE HOLDINGS INC.**

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2003 AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY PARTICIPATIONPLAN OF SCPIE HOLDINGS INC., dated as of February 26, 2004, is made and adopted by SCPIE HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed tothem in the 2003 Plan (as defined below). 

 

**RECITALS**

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 2003 Amended andRestated Equity Participation Plan of SCPIE Holdings Inc (the “2003 Plan”); 

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the 2003 Plan as set forth below; 

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.2 of the 2003 Plan, the 2003 Plan may be amended by the Board of Directors of the Company; 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Company hereby amendsthe 2003 Plan as follows: 

 

1. The following sentence is herebyadded to the end of Section 10.2 of the 2003 Plan: 

 

“This Plan will expire on, and no award may be granted pursuant to this Plan after, May 15, 2012. Any awards that are outstanding on such date shall remain in force according to the terms of this Plan and the applicable awardagreement.” 

 

2. This First Amendment shall be and ishereby incorporated in and forms a part of the 2003 Plan. 

 

3.All other terms and provisions of the 2003 Plan shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein. 

 

4. The 2003 Plan, as amended by this First Amendment, is hereby ratified and confirmed. 

 

*[Signature Page to Follow]*

 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of SCPIEHoldings Inc. on February 26, 2004. 

 

By:
 
/s/    JOSEPH P. HENKES        
  
Name:
 Joseph P. Henkes
Title:
 Secretary
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

TAJHON BODERICK WILSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-2866 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Frank Quesada, Judge. Tajhon Boderick Wilson, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegel, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 528 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 528

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
    documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for three vessels.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COASTWISE TRADE AUTHORIZATION FOR HOVERCRAFT.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and 
sections 12106 and 12107 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary 
of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with a 
coastwise endorsement for each of the vessels IDUN VIKING (Danish 
Registration number A433), LIV VIKING (Danish Registration number 
A394), and FREJA VIKING (Danish Registration number A395) if--
            (1) all repair and alteration work on the vessels necessary 
        to their operation under this section is performed in the 
        United States;
            (2) a binding contract for the construction in the United 
        States of at least 3 similar vessels for the coastwise trade is 
        executed by the owner of the vessels within 6 months after the 
        date of enactment of this Act; and
            (3) the vessels constructed under the contract entered into 
        under paragraph (1) are to be delivered within 3 years after 
        the date of entering into that contract.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 528

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
    documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for three vessels.
```
#### Humberto MUNOZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29098.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 29, 1957.

J. Earl Barnhouse, Alice, for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is murder without malice; the punishment, two years.

Sentence was pronounced on March 25, 1957, at which time appellant gave notice of appeal.

The statement of facts was filed in the trial court on June 27, 1957. Not having been filed within the 90 days allowed under Sec.' 4 of Art. 759a, V.A.C.C.P., we are not authorized to consider such statement of facts.

No ground for reversal is advanced which may be appraised without a statement of facts and the proceedings otherwise appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Paul R. CARTER, Appellant, v. MONT CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 14315.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Houston.

March 19, 1964.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1964.

*912Ted Musick, Houston, for appellant.

Butler, Binion, Rice & Cook, William E. Wright, Houston, for appellee.

WERLEIN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Mont Corporation, one of three defendants sued by appellant. On motion of appellant, the cause of action against Mont Corporation was severed from that against the other defendants.

Appellant alleged that on or about December 6, 1961, he entered into a contract of employment under which he was to perform certain mechanical work overseas ; that after recovering from an illness contracted' overseas, he notified the defendant, International Drilling Company, a corporation, that he was ready to return to work; that the defendants refused to give him any work assignment under said contract; and' that he was required to seek employment elsewhere, to his damáge in the sum of $12,500.00. Appellant attached to his petition his alleged contract of employment, which in fact is an application for overseas employment with International Drilling Company, Ltd. This application, which was signed by appellant, clearly states that appellee, Mont Corporation, was acting only as a broker in securing the application and that no commitment of any kind would arise until such application was accepted by International Drilling Company, Ltd.

We have carefully considered appellant’s petition and said application which was later accepted by International Drilling Company, Ltd., and also the affidavits which were filed by the parties to the suit, and have concluded that appellant has wholly failed to plead a cause of action against appellee and that no fact issue has been raised for determination by the court or jury.

Another reason for affirming the judgment of the trial court is that appellant’s brief fails to comply with the minimum requirements of Rule 418, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. He has, therefore, waived his single Point of Error.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           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 ValCom,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form
10-K  for  the  year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities  and
Exchange Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent Vellardita,
Chief Executive Officer and  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements  of  section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A  signed  original of this written statement required by Section 906 has  been
provided to  ValCom, Inc. and will be retained by ValCom, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

October 15, 2008


By: /s/  Vince Vellardita
    ----------------------
    Vince Vellardita
    Chief Executive Officer,
    Chief Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

GREGORY M. COTICCHIA,

Petitioner

v.

MALCOVERY SECURITY, LLC,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 78 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

GREGORY M. COTICCHIA,

Petitioner

v.

MALCOVERY SECURITY, LLC,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 79 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of July, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,805
<SECURITIES>                                       431
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                       351
<INVENTORY>                                     11,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,626
<PP&E>                                          33,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,116)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,546
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           339
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,550
<SALES>                                         69,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,381
<CGS>                                           39,818
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (16)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (16)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,828
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,575
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,685
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of NVE Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period endedMarch 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Richard L. George, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

 

1.     The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date: May 24, 2004      |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
| /s/ Richard L. George   |   |
| Richard L. George       |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 2. TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of March 21, 2017 (the “Effective
Date”) to that EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT made and entered into as of December 13, 2013 (the “Agreement”) by and between FTI Consulting, Inc., a Maryland corporation with its principal offices in Annapolis, Maryland (the
“Company”), and Steven Gunby (the “Executive,” and together with the Company, the “Parties”). 
 W I
T N E S S E T H: 
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend certain terms of the Agreement; and 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Amendment and in the Agreement, the Parties mutually agree as
follows: 
 1. Section 11(a) Termination for any Reason. SECTION 11(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding a new
clause (vi) thereto, to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “, and (vi) only in the case of termination by the Company or the
Executive on account of death or Disability, a pro-rated annual incentive bonus for the performance year of termination based on actual performance results for such performance year, determined by multiplying (x) the amount of such annual
incentive bonus (if any) which would be due and payable for the full performance year in which such termination occurred had such termination event not occurred, by (y) a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of days from the beginning
of the performance year through (and excluding) the date of termination, and the denominator of which is 365, which amount (if any) shall be paid in a lump sum in cash when annual incentive bonuses for such performance year are paid to other
eligible senior executives of the Company (the “Pro-rated Annual Incentive Bonus”).” 
 2. Section 11(b)
Termination by the Company without Cause or by the Executive for Good Reason. SECTION 11(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting current clause (iii) thereof and replacing it with a new clause (iii), to read in its
entirety as follows: 
 “(iii) any Pro-rated Annual Incentive Bonus;” 

3. Affirmation. This Amendment is to be read and construed with the Agreement as constituting one and the same agreement. Except as
specifically modified by this Amendment, all remaining provisions, terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 







 4. Defined Terms. All terms not herein defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
the Agreement. 
 5. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 [Signature Page Follows} 

  
 -2- 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed this Amendment as of the Effective Date. 

 

			
	FTI CONSULTING, INC.
		
	By:	 	/S/ CURTIS LU
	Name:	 	Curtis Lu
	Title:	 	General Counsel


  

			
	EXECUTIVE
		
	By:	 	/S/ STEVEN H. GUNBY
		 	Steven H. Gunby



  
 -3-
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THE MEDICINES COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HOSPIRA, INC.,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1469, -1504

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:09-cv-00750-RGA, Judge 

Richard G. Andrews.

______________________ 

O R D E R 

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

The en banc oral argument in this case is scheduled 

for May 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 201. Each side

will have 30 minutes for a total argument time of one 

hour. The parties shall notify the court by ECF by April 

15, 2016 of the names of the counsel who will present oral 

argument. 
2 THE MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC. 

 FOR THE COURT

 March 11, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2009-5133 

 PAMELA Y. DOMINICK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Pamela Y. Dominick, of Dayton, Ohio, pro se. 

Christopher L. Krafchek, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. 

Davidson, Director, and Alan J. Lo Re, Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Nancy B. Firestone 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential 

 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-5133 

PAMELA Y. DOMINICK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in 09-CV-096, Judge Nancy B. Firestone. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: February 3, 2010 

 __________________________ 

Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER and RADER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Pamela Y. Dominick appeals from the final judgment of the United States Court 

of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Dominick v. United 

States, No. 09-96C (July 21, 2009). We affirm. 

I 

Ms. Dominick was employed for 18 years by the Department of the Air Force at 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio before her termination on August 1, 1993, 

based on charges that she misused a government-issued credit card. 

Ms. Dominick filed her complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on February 19, 

2009, alleging that she had been terminated because of her race. The United States 
moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that exclusive 

jurisdiction over employment discrimination claims lies in the United States District 

Courts. The Court of Federal Claims afforded Ms. Dominick, proceeding pro se, 

opportunities to respond. Ms. Dominick did not respond to the motion to dismiss, 

instead asking for an opportunity to meet with the court. The court granted the motion 

to dismiss. 

II 

We review the dismissal of a case for lack of jurisdiction without deference to the 

trial court. Sacco v. United States, 452 F.3d 1305, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The 

jurisdiction of the United States District Courts over employment race discrimination 

cases "create[s] an exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the 

redress of federal employment discrimination." Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin. 425 U.S. 

820, 829 (1976). Consequently, the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to 

entertain a suit alleging such discrimination. The Court of Federal Claims correctly 

dismissed Ms. Dominick's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and we therefore affirm its 

final judgment. 

COSTS 

No costs. 

 

2009-5133 2
‘\:

I c. HAM4 a..- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS _ **AtJSTIN**

**Hon. Leo**  C. **Euakier** Febrtiary 23, 1930

.-Eon. Leo C. Buckley,Pebruvrp 23, 1X39, Page 2
the ?eace,for occh crirr.lnal aoticn tried aud fimlly disPosed **r?f** kofore bin. .Frovided, hosever,that in all couctleshevin2a populatlon of 23,OOO or less, the Sustioeof the

. Pecco shellrevefve a trial fee of Three Dollars.' _ . ioll0ws: Itilcle1074, C. C. P. of **T0se5,** 1923, Is as

**. .**  **. .**  **.._**

.. 'In eaoh oase of conviction**in** a County Court, or a County Court at Law, whetherby L .a jury or by a Court, those shall be taxedacaipstthe defendantor aCalmlY all defenbents,when severalare hold jointly,e txial - fcC of Fire pcllers, the sme to be collectsd ,ald p&id over i?l

the sam nanaer a5 in the 0ase Of a jury fee, and in the **&sticc** Court the trial fee shall be the sum of I'our Dollars.n Tho above &Mole 1052 is one settingaud estsblishine the fee for the justioeof the pecce in orimihal' cases acd 58% s'uch fee to be paid hiin et $2.50 In counties of more than twenty thousand **population** and at $3.00 in oonntieeof less than twenty thouaandpopulation.

Article 1074, above rererred to, ou the other hand deals not with the question of fees to be paid to the justiceof the peace but mther tith a matter of aosts t.o

be chargedend asse5sed ai;lelnst a defendant 'convicted

in a ori+mal aotibn. It provides that the trial feo in the ju5tloecourt shall be Y4.02 acd that Vhe ame to be collectedand paid over in t.ke saue manner **es** in t&e case of a jury feeen Th:is neaqs that **such fke**  **of** 

## $4.00 **511~311 be.?aiC**  **over to**  **t!xi county**  **trea** surer acd out of such 5uii tlie **jystico** 'ofthe pea00 shall reoeive the sum of $3.00 ig counti of lens than t=enty thousand

) "9 ?rcwj.bed

by Article XXX:, 7. C. 7. . .

. It is, therefore,the opinion of this Depertmentnnd you are so cdvised thet there is no conflict bctxecn ,W.icles1052 nz:.: 1074, C. C. P., snd that t3e 

## correct

cncxu.t,to-

be tar:?8

as costs by the **.)Ustioe of**  the ycace RS hi5 triol'f+=,in 3-;e:!nt c: oa?luict.iun

eit?,er.._.

by the court.or jluyf, Is $4.00 snd that out or such oosts so essessedand ~ollcalsd,iA4 justioucf the peso0 ia entitled to tlJe-

&Uzl of ;3.00 in conntiasOf 1035 thm twenty thousand~o~uldA.oaes MS Cm, the other one dollsr to be kept and retninedby the oounty.

Trustingt!mt this satisfactorily @~swersya'aur ein&iry, wa hre I
‘* e. :’ Very truly yours GZXZ?.tI,

02' TZCS 

## X&AS . .