alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w2w2



 






Exhibit 10.2.2




AMENDMENT NO. 3

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.

DIRECTORS’ RETIREMENT PLAN




     Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 thereof, the Trinity Industries, Inc. Directors’
Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as of December 15, 2005 in the following
respects only:



     FIRST: A new Section 13 is added as follows:




     13. Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, the interest in this Plan
of each member of the Board of Directors as of December 15, 2005 who is not an employee
of the Company and who has served as a director for ten or more years as of December 15,
2005 shall be terminated as of December 15, 2005 and each such director shall be paid
before December 31, 2005 a lump sum as hereinafter provided. The lump sum payment shall be
calculated by first determining an annual retainer projection by increasing the annual
retainer in effect on December 15, 2005 of $40,000 by 4% for each year remaining between
December 15, 2005 and May 15 of the year following such director’s 72nd birthday
(the “Projected Annual Retainer Factor”) and second, discounting ten years of payments of
the Projected Annual Retainer back to December 15, 2005 using a present value discount
factor of 5%.



     SECOND: A new Section 14 is added as follows:




     14. Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the
contrary, the interest
in this Plan of each member of the Board of Directors as of December 15, 2005 who was
elected to the Board prior to August 9, 2005, who is not an employee of the Company, and
who has served on the Board less than ten years as of December 15, 2005 and therefore not
100% vested pursuant to Section 3 of this Plan (the “Remaining Directors”), shall be
terminated and paid a lump sum on the earlier to occur of retirement, death, a Change of
Control as defined by Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), or after ten full years of service on the Board (the “Date of Calculation”) based
on the vesting schedule as provide in Section 3 as of the Date of Calculation. The lump
sum payment shall be calculated by first determining the Projected Annual Retainer; second,
determining the vesting percentage as provided in Section 3 of this Plan; and third,
discounting the ten years of payments of the Projected Annual Retainer back to the Date of
Calculation, using a present value discount factor of 5%. Upon a Change of Control as
defined by Section 409A of the Code, the Remaining Directors shall become 100% vested.



     THIRD: In all other respects, the terms of the Plan are ratified and confirmed.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of this 7th day of
December, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	BY:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Vice President and Corporate Secretary
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a )

BRAZOS LICENSING AND )

DEVELEOPMENT, ) Case No. 6:20-cv-487-ADA

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC., )

AND ZTE (TX), INC., )

)

Defendants )

ORDER

NOW this matter is before the Court on Defendant ZTE Corporation’s Unopposed Motion, 

filed on September 25, 2020, seeking an enlargement of time to answer or otherwise plead to the 

Complaint. The current deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise plead is September 29, 

2020. Defendant has requested an additional ten (10) days from the current deadline, until October 

9, 2020, to make its filing. Plaintiff offers no objection to the enlargement of time requested by 

Defendant.

The Court FINDS good cause exists to grant the relief requested.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant shall have an additional ten (10) 

days, until Friday, October 9, 2020, to file their answer or responsive motion.

DATED THIS ____ day of _____________, 2020.

__________________________________________

ALAN D. ALBRIGHT

JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 19-1 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

April 1, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter is written pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation
S-X.

Northland Cable Television, Inc. has received a representation letter from
Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) stating that the audit of the consolidated
balance sheets of Northland Cable Television, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders deficit and cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2001, was subject to Andersens quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working
on the audit, availability of national office consultation, and availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of
the audit.

Very truly yours,

|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ Gary S. Jones        |  | 
|Gary S. Jones, President |  |
#### H. R. SHORT, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 22543.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1943.

J. M. Parker, of Gorman, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in Eastland County, a dry area, punishment being fine of $100.

The jurisdiction of the County Court was not challenged at the time of trial, and no statement of facts is brought forward.

However, the same question as to jurisdiction is raised by brief in this case as was presented and decided in King v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 174 S.W.2d 266. The same reasons appearing in the opinion in said cause call for an affirmance of the judgment in the instant case, and it is so ordered.
SERVED: March 10, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF SHARP 29 CORPORATION d/b/a ALOHA STATE SALES CO., INC: FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-1084
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as CaseNo. 2012WP700051) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List.

# GG.Y~~_,..~ ChiefAdministrative Law !udge Attachment

- Service List

# \

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001



### James Sharp, Vice President Sharp 29 Corporation, ONE COPY



### d/b/a Aloha State Sales, Inc., Respondent 

### 2909 Ualena Street · ·Honolulu, HI 96819

TEL: 808-844-2929 FAX: 808-839-5412 LisaJ. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, WesternPacific Region, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-200;7 TEl:-: 310-725-7110 FAJ<: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-1084 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
Opinion issued January 11 , 201 3

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 01152
- CV

——————————— IN RE DARRYL W. RISER , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator , Darryl W. Riser, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking relief from the trial court’s order denying his “motion to2

disqualify and recuse” respondent 1 from hearing proceedings in the underlying
suit. 2

W e deny the petition for writ of mandamus. All pending motions are
dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and J ustice s Keyes and Higley

.

1 Respondent is the Honorable Dan Hinde, P residing J udge of the 269th District Court, Harris County, Texas.

2 The underlying case is Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. Darryl W. Riser , No. 2011

- 16783 , 269th Dist. Court (Harris Cnty., Tex.).
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3109 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to exempt certain 

Alaskan Native articles from prohibitions against sale 

of items containing nonedible migratory bird parts, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3109 RFS

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM PROHIBITIONS FOR ALAS2 KAN NATIVE ARTICLES CONTAINING MIGRA3 TORY BIRD PARTS. 

4 Section 2 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 

5 U.S.C. 703) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(c) EXEMPTION FOR AUTHENTIC ALASKAN NATIVE

8 ARTICLES OF HANDICRAFT OR CLOTHING.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

10 provisions of this Act, nothing in this Act prohibits 

11 possession, offering for sale, sale, offering to barter, 

12 barter, offering to purchase, purchase, delivery for 

13 shipment, shipment, causing to be shipped, delivered 

14 for transportation, transport or causing to be trans15 ported, carrying or causing to be carried, or receiv16 ing for shipment, transportation, or carriage, any 

17 authentic Alaskan Native article of handicraft or 

18 clothing on the basis that it contains a nonedible mi19 gratory bird part. 

20 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—This subsection shall not 

21 apply with respect to any handicraft or clothing con22 taining any part of a migratory bird that was taken 

23 in a wasteful manner. 

24 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 3109 RFS

1 ‘‘(A) ALASKAN NATIVE.—The term ‘Alas2 kan Native’ means any Indian, Aleut, or Es3 kimo who resides in Alaska. 

4 ‘‘(B) AUTHENTIC ALASKAN NATIVE ARTI5 CLE OF HANDICRAFT OR CLOTHING.—The term 

6 ‘authentic Alaskan Native article of handicraft 

7 or clothing’— 

8 ‘‘(i) means any item that is— 

9 ‘‘(I) composed wholly or in some 

10 significant respect of natural mate11 rials; and 

12 ‘‘(II) produced, decorated, or 

13 fashioned by an Alaskan Native, in 

14 the exercise of traditional Alaskan 

15 Native handicrafts, without the use of 

16 any pantograph or other mass copying 

17 device; and 

18 ‘‘(ii) includes any weaving, carving, 

19 stitching, sewing, lacing, beading, drawing, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 3109 RFS

1 or painting described in clause (i), or any 

2 combination thereof.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


2006 CASH BONUS PLANS

     The Compensation Committee approved a bonus plan for executive officers of
the Company to be effective for the 2006 fiscal year. Pursuant to the 2006 bonus
plan, Joey A. Jacobs, Steven T. Davidson, Brent Turner, Jack E. Polson,
Christopher L. Howard and the individual hired as Chief Operating Officer, when
and if hired by the Company, may be awarded cash bonuses based upon the
Company's attainment of certain performance targets during 2006. The plan
provides that the bonus of Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Turner, Mr. Polson and
Mr. Howard for 2006 will be based 60% upon targets related to the comparison of
the Company's actual earnings before income from continuing operations before
interest expense (net of interest income), income taxes, depreciation and
amortization ("EBITDA") to budgeted EBITDA for 2006; 20% upon targets related to
adjusted earnings per share for 2006; and 20% on other criteria selected by the
Compensation Committee. The bonus for the Company's Chief Operating Officer for
2006 will be based 70% upon targets related to the comparison of the Company's
actual EBITDA to budgeted EBITDA for 2006; 20% upon targets related to adjusted
earnings per share for 2006; and 10% on other criteria selected by the
Compensation Committee. In addition, the Company must collect at least 95% of
revenue recorded in order for the executive officers to be eligible for payment
of a bonus. The maximum bonus award (as a percentage of base salary) that each
executive officer can receive is as follows: Mr. Jacobs, 135%; the Chief
Operating Officer, 90%; and Mr. Davidson, Mr. Turner, Mr. Polson and Mr. Howard,
67.5%.

     Following the end of the 2006 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee will
determine whether and the extent to which the applicable 2006 performance
targets discussed above were met. The awarding of cash bonuses is subject to the
discretion of the Compensation Committee.
Contacts. Withwhom outside the FAAhasthisproposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted 

### Oat. Response National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 

# Ilh,


# - Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer 

## /0/3/ 

# - Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 

## 16/3' 'lf1 , ~ AU Craig Fabian 

## /0 3/ 

# d1 ~ L e-L.. 09/29/06
#### GLOSSUP v. STATE.

No. 22460.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1943.

Earl Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant and Frank Hill were jointly indicted for the theft of an automobile and this appellant, upon his trial, was given a sentence of two years in the penitentiary.

Hill and his wife had planned during the day to steal an automobile for the purpose of going to some other place to seek work. They came in contact with Glossup, who seems to have been associated with them intimately, and together the three found a Plymouth car in the possession of Mrs. J. B. Williams at -2209 Nueces Street in the City of Austin. This was sometime before midnight. After several minutes they succeeded in wiring around the switch so as to start the car. They then went to Glossup’s sister’s home to get his wife, and the'four entered the car with their luggage for the purpose of visiting some relatives of one of the parties in Milam County. The theft of the car was reported to officers and through their efforts a policeman at Taylor discovered the parties passing through, and after firing some shots, disabled the car, whereupon the occupants fled from -it and made their escape. In the car were found personal belongings of appellant and his wife, including their marriage license and ration cards. The story of their arrest is not given in detail, nor is it pertinent to any issue in the case.

Appellant offered evidence of an alibi, which, if believed by the jury, would have exonerated him from any participation in the theft of the automobile, though he was unquestionably one of the occupants thereof at ’ the time . the car was passing through Taylor. Hill’s wife testified in the case, giving details of the theft, and involved Glossup ais a party principal.

The two witnesses testifying to an alibi for the appellant were his sister and her husband. In his closing argument State’s counsel referred to the fact that neither of these two witnesses, who had known him all his life, made any reference to the good reputation of the accused. He had not testified in his own behalf and *229had not placed his reputation in issue. This argument was improper. However, the only defensive issue in the case submitted to the jury was that of alibi. The proof of his guilt was overwhelming. See Scott v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 634, 21 S.W.2d 1041. It appears that this argument was immaterial' to any issue in the case and that the jury did not consider it in assessing only a two year penalty. See Adams v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 151, 11 S.W.2d *796.*We are unable to conceive the possibility that harm resulted to the appellant in view of the record in this particular case.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NOTE

DATE: March 5, 2012

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0660

FROM: Mary Johnson

SUBJECT: Summary of July 13, 2011 Meeting with Small Entities

Standards of Performance for GHG Emissions for New Stationary Sources: EGUs: Proposed 

Rule

The EPA’s outreach to small entities regarded planned actions for new and existing sources, but 

only new sources would be affected by the currently proposed action. At that time, the EPA 

believed it likely that proposed regulations for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric 

utility generating units (EGUs) (new sources as well as existing sources) would not result in a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). However, 

because the EPA believes that outreach to small entities is an important element in the 

development of these regulations, the EPA requested that a Small Business Advocacy Review 

(SBAR) Panel be convened to allow that outreach to occur.

It has since been determined that new source performance standards (NSPS) for emissions of 

carbon dioxide (CO2) for new affected fossil-fuel-fired EGUs will be proposed at this time. At a 

future date, the EPA intends to promulgate emission guidelines for states to develop plans 

reducing CO2 emissions from existing fossil-fuel-fired EGUs.

Summary of July 13, 2011 Meeting with Small Entities

A second outreach meeting was held with small entity representatives on July 13, 2011. 

Representatives from nine small entities and three organizations participating as 

viewers/technical backup participated in the meeting. When conducted, this meeting with small 

entity representatives was referred to as the second SBAR Panel Outreach Meeting. Topics 

suggested by small entity representatives and other non-small entity participants were 

accommodated during this meeting. A list of meeting participants and copies of materials

provided by the industry representatives are attached to this note. The following small entity

representatives-suggested issues were presented by small entity representatives:

1. Limited use boilers with limited opportunities for efficient improvements due to NSR 

complications for conventional pollutants (even though they believe that the pollution 

control exclusion applies in the context of NSPS).

2. Variances per kwH and heat rates over monthly and annual operations (six real world 

case studies by utilities)

3. Age of plant is significant in setting any NSPS for CO2

4. Legal issues on NSPS for CO2

5. Knowing the end game on biomass is critical before proposing NSPS for EPA and 

utilities
6. Municipal government electric utilities are different from other utilities. (Examples: 

the business model is based upon cost-effective decisions that integrate wastewater 

treatment waste combustion, etc.; waste heat for snow melt and community energy

plan provides high temperature for high temperature water in buildings to reduce CO2 

used from heating of water, etc.)

Attachments
5/15/2015 Page of

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT

Summary Page

Chemical ID: P-15-0378 Reviewer: Tobias/EN

Endpoints-Assessed Table

Endpoints/Assessment 

Cycles1

Releases 

Assessed in 

NCEM2?

Reasons for not assessing releases

No XB 

Testing 

Required

No 

Hazard 

Concern

No 

Releases

Release 

Below 

Acute 

Threshold5

Release 

Below 

Chronic 

Threshold5

Other

Ingestion

Surface water

Ground water (landfill)

Consumer Use: DtD2

Inhalation

Air: incineration (stack)

Air: fugitive

Consumer Use: CEM3

Dermal

Consumer Use: CEM

Eco

Surface water: ADR 

conc and/or PDM4

Consumer Use: DtD

1

Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model.

2

Down-the-Drain 3

Consumer Exposure Model

4

Probabilistic Dilution Model

5

The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses.

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure 

assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch=s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report).
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.47 
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 Members of the Board of Directors (the
“Board”) who are employees of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. (the “Company”) or its affiliates are not separately compensated for service on the Board of Directors or any of its committees. 
 Effective January 1, 2006, directors of the Company who are not employees of the Company or its affiliates will receive an annual cash retainer of
$45,000 and an equity retainer consisting of a grant of deferred stock units having a value of $90,000 for service on the Board and its committees or, if necessary in the case of any director that is not a resident of the United States, restricted
shares of Class A Common Stock of the Company. The cash retainer is paid in monthly installments, and the restricted shares or deferred stock units are awarded to directors on the date of the annual shareholders’ meeting and vest on the
date that the director’s service on the Board ends. 
 The Chairman of the Board receives a supplemental annual retainer of $40,000,
paid one-half in cash and one-half in shares of the Company’s Class A Common Stock, for his additional duties. This supplemental retainer of cash and stock is also paid in monthly installments. The Chairman of the Audit Committee of the
Board receives a supplemental annual retainer of $15,000, and the Chairman of each other committee of the Board receives a supplemental annual retainer of $6,000. These supplemental retainers are paid in monthly installments. 
 Non-employee directors also receive a cash meeting fee of $2,250 for each Audit Committee meeting attended, and a meeting fee of $2,000 for each other
Board or committee meeting attended. 
 An additional retainer of $15,000 is payable in cash to the members of special committees, if and
when such committees are established by the Board. 
 Non-employee directors may elect annually to defer any or all of their cash
compensation for service. Amounts deferred earn a return equivalent to the rate of return on selected investment choices offered under the Nationwide Board of Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan. 
 The Company reimburses directors of the Company for reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board, committee or shareholder
meetings and other Company events. This may include travel on the Company plane. Travel expenses for the spouses or guests of directors may also be reimbursed. The Company will also provide a gross-up payment in some circumstances for travel
expenses for spouses or guests. This amount is taxed to the appropriate director. 
 Directors may also be provided with computers and
certain other office equipment, office supplies, and additional home phone or computer lines at the discretion of the Company. The Company also pays the dues for each director’s membership in the National Association of Corporate Directors and
reimburses directors for expenses related to educational or professional seminars the directors choose to attend. The Company will also reimburse directors for certain physical examinations.