alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 10.10.6  


 
 

AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE TO
  THE EXECUTIVE MEDICAL PLAN OF
  THE COCA-COLA COMPANY    
    


        THIS AMENDMENT to the Executive Medical Plan of The Coca-Cola Company (the "Plan") is adopted by the Plan Administrator. 


W I T N E S S E T H:  


        WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Plan provides that the Plan Administrator may amend the Plan at any time; and 



        WHEREAS,
the Plan Administrator wishes to amend the Plan. 


        Effective
January 1, 2006, Section 12.4 shall be restated in its entirety to read as follows: 



        "12.4    Establishment and Maintenance of Adequate Separation between the Company and Plan.    In accordance with the
requirements of HIPAA, only the employees/classes of employees identified by the Plan Administrator or its delegate, as set forth in a separate written document maintained by the Plan Administrator or
its delegate, will be given access to PHI to be used or disclosed. Such designated persons will only have access to and use PHI for purposes of Plan administration functions that the Company performs
for the Plan. Notwithstanding the amendment provisions of this Plan, the Plan Administrator or its delegate is hereby granted authority to amend the designated persons document from time to time as
necessary to facilitate payment or health care operations of the Plan. Any such amendment to the designated persons may apply prospectively or retroactively." 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plan Administrator has adopted this Amendment Number Five on the date shown below, but effective as of the dates indicated above. 



	 	 	Plan Administrator
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  BARBARA S. GILBREATH      

	

 	
 	

Date:	
 	

December 20, 2005














QuickLinks


AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE TO THE EXECUTIVE MEDICAL PLAN OF THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3094 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3094

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
                qualified tuition and related expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2013

Mr. Braley of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 
                qualified tuition and related expenses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tuition Relief for Students Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED 
              EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 222(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2013'' and inserting 
``December 31, 2017''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
H. R. 2922 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen 

An Act 

To extend the authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect court officials 

away from the Supreme Court grounds. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SUPREME COURT POLICE 

TO PROTECT COURT OFFICIALS OFF SUPREME COURT 

GROUNDS. 

Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended 

by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2019’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### GILSON v. CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. et al.

No. 12122.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 28, 1950.

Lyle V. Timmins, Raymondville, for appellant.

S. L. Gill, Raymondville, J. M. Wilson, Corpus Christi, Nielsen & McCormick, Ray-mondville, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

Appellant, John C. Gilson, claims a leasehold interest in a triangular tract of land situated in the City of Raymondville, Texas. He is using the same for a parking lo;t Near the point where two of the streets bounding the lot intersect, the.. Central Power and Light' Company has erected two poles. One is a live pole and supports a street light and the other is 'a dead pole -Which supports two signs. One sign was placed''on the pole by the Central Power an'd Light Company and serves to direct persons to the Company’s plant. The other advertises a hotel , operated by Paul R. Wimberly. Both poles are located in the ■space lying between a sidewalk .and the border of the -hard surface of the street.

The court below refused to grant a temporary injunction, prayed for by Gil-son, which would result in the removal of the dead pole and the signs attached thereto. -This order must be affirmed because the - record fails to disclose the existence of an emergency necessitating the granting of a temporary injunction, and for this reason, if for no other, it can not be held that the trial court abused its discretion in 'refusing the application. '

The office of the temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the controversy pending litigation, 24 Tex.Jur. 123, § 86, and not to finally determine property rights. In the absence of a showing of emergency or extreme necessity this Court will not reverse a trial, judge’s order, refusing a temporary injunction, 24 Tex.Jur. 124, § 87, especially if the requested relief be mandatory in nature. 24 Tex.Jr. 125, § 88; Lewis v. Hoerster, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 537. See Frels v. Consolidated Theatres, Inc., Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 369.

The order appealed from is affirmed. ,.
Exhibit
14.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 pertaining to the Randgold Resources
Limited Share Option Scheme of our report dated June 28, 2005 (except
for Note 5 which is as of September 22, 2005) relating to the financial
statements of Randgold Resources Limited and its subsidiaries and joint
venture which appears in this Form 20-F/A.

/s/
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chartered AccountantsLondon United Kingdom
October 11, 2005

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1754

_____________________________ S EAN S PENCER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duv al County

. Linda F. McCallum , Judge

. October 16, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Sean Spencer, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
##### 



EXHIBIT
10.32
 Director Compensation
  Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc.
    
    Midwest Bank and Trust CompanyBoard Meetings:
    
    $1,000 per meeting attended
    
    $1,000 per meeting attendedCommittee Meetings:
    
    $750 per meeting attended for Audit
Committee members$500 per meeting attended for
Corporate Governance and Nominating
Committee members$500 per meeting attended for
Compensation Committee members$500 per meeting attended for
Strategic Opportunities Committee
members$500 per meeting attended for Asset
Liability Committee membersAnnual Retainer:
    
    $15,000 for Board
    
    $15,000 for Board$18,000 for Audit Committee Chairman$2,500 for Corporate Governance and
Nominating Chairman, Compensation
Committee Chairman, Strategic
Opportunities Committee Chairman,
and Asset Liability Committee
Chairman
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2806 

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that importation of certain 

containers containing de minimis residual matter shall be excepted from 

the Customs laws of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2013 

Mr. MARCHANT (for himself and Mr. KIND) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that importation 

of certain containers containing de minimis residual matter shall be excepted from the Customs laws of the 

United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Residue Entries and 

5 Streamlining Trade Act’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2806 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN CONTAINERS CON2 TAINING DE MINIMIS RESIDUAL MATTER TO 

3 BE EXCEPTED FROM THE CUSTOMS LAWS OF 

4 THE UNITED STATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 322(a) of the Tariff Act 

6 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1322(a)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘(a)(1)’’; 

8 (2) by inserting after ‘‘other instruments of 

9 international traffic’’ the following: ‘‘, including in10 struments of international traffic containing de 

11 minimis residual matter’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘de minimis residual 

14 matter’ means material remaining in an instrument of 

15 international traffic after its contents have been unloaded 

16 to the maximum extent practicable and before the instru17 ment of international traffic is either refilled or cleaned.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 subsection (a) take effect on the date of the enactment 

20 of this Act and apply with respect to the importation of 

21 instruments of international traffic containing de minimis 

22 residual matter on or after such date of enactment. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26965]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institutes of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: November 6, 2000.
    Time: 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 45 Natcher Bldg., Rm. 5As.25u, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Tracy A. Shahan, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bldg. 45/Room 5as-
25h, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4952.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: December 5, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 
20815.
    Contact Person: Tracy A. Shahan, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bldg. 45/Room 5as-
25h, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4952.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 13, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-26965 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting will be held Monday, November 13, 2000, of the Advisory Committee on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Working Group studying long-term care.

The session will take place in Room N-5437 A-D, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 11:00 a.m. to approximately noon is for working group members to approve the recommendations they will include in their final report to the Secretary of Labor.

Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before November 6, 2000, to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Working Group should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities, who need special accommodations, should contact Sharon Morrissey by November 6, at the address indicated in this notice.

Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the meeting if received on or before November 6.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 19th day of October 2000.

Leslie Kramerich,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-27260 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
#### GEERS v. STATE.

No. 26206.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1953.

Clark A. Holloway, Clarksville, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, ninety days in jail and a fine of $100.

Deputy Sheriff Barton testified that on the day in question he saw the appellant get out of his automobile, run to a fence, place a package over the fence, return to his automobile, and start to drive away. The witness testified that he stopped the appellant, required him to return to the fence with him, examined the box, and found it to contain six pints of whiskey.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he had lost his watch the night before, and had returned to get it when he was arrested. Appellant testified that he knew nothing of the box or the whiskey.

The jury resolved the issue against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

There is no merit in appellant’s contention that the court should have appointed a lawyer to represent him or that the punishment inflicted by the jury was excessive.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3058 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3058

 To provide for additional Federal district judgeships for the eastern 
            district of California, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

 Mr. Valadao (for himself, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr. Costa, and 
  Mr. Nunes) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for additional Federal district judgeships for the eastern 
            district of California, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Central Valley Judicial Relief Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS IN CALIFORNIA.

    (a) Additional Permanent District Judgeships.--The President shall 
appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 6 additional 
district judges for the eastern district of California.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table contained in section 133(a) of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating 
to California and inserting the following:

``California:                                                     ......
  Northern......................................................      14
  Eastern.......................................................      12
  Central.......................................................      27
  Southern......................................................   13''.
 

    (c) Temporary Judgeship.--
            (1) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
        the advice and consent of the Senate, one additional district 
        judge for the eastern district of California.
            (2) Vacancy not filled.--The first vacancy in the office of 
        district judge in the eastern district of California, occurring 
        10 years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named 
        to fill the temporary district judgeship created by this 
        subsection, shall not be filled.

SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL PLACE OF HOLDING COURT.

    Section 84(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in the 
second sentence by inserting ``Bakersfield,'' after ``shall be held 
at''.
                                 <all>
```
#### ANDERSON v. STATE.

No. 26416.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant..

Wesley Dice,' State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. . •

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Driving while intoxicated upon a public highway is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the- trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### HOCKER v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 11, 1953.

Robert M. Spragens, Lebanon, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

George Hocker was sentenced to five years in prison for killing Sam Haggard with a pistol. On this appeal he insists he is entitled to a new trial because of the injection of evidence into the case tending to prove him guilty of a crime other than the one for which he was being tried.

Both of the parties were colored. Hock-er is a small man, 60 years of age, who said he was in poor health. Haggard was a large man, some 36 years of age. The shooting took place around 6 o’clock at night. During the afternoon preceding the shooting, Haggard and several others were in Hocker’s home listening to a football game over the radio. After the game every one left but Hocker. A little later Haggard returned with a pint of wine which he and Hocker drank. Haggard carried in a couple of buckets of coal for Hocker for which he was paid SO cents. An argument ensued and Haggard got Hocker down on the bed, choking him. Hocker got his pistol out from under the pillow. He said Haggard, who was some eight or ten feet from him toward the door, turned and came back toward him saying he was going to take both his pistol and his money. He then shot Haggard. There were no eyewitnesses other than Hocker.

Two police officers testified they found a large number of empty whiskey bottles in Hocker’s home and that they smelled like they had had moonshine in them. On cross examination Hocker was asked why he did not drink some of the moonshine. Other questions relating to moonshine whiskey were asked, even though the judge had previously ruled that this type of evidence was incompetent. There was no occasion for the injection of the moonshine whiskey question into the case. The judge properly gave a strong admonition on the question. It follows:

> “This type of testimony — the purpose of it would be prejudicial to the defendant. Don’t permit any reference to these bottles of whiskey that he had there for any illegal purpose to influence your verdict in this case. The defendant is being tried upon a murder charge, and you will not permit any influence that might be drawn from this examination about the bottles to influence your verdict.”

A motion to discharge the jury was overruled.

We think the admonition given by the judge was sufficient when we consider the light sentence imposed upon Hocker. He *825said that, after the first encounter, Haggard started toward the door and was some eight or ten feet away (though advancing toward him) when he fired the fatal shot. The jury could well have believed Hocker used more force than was necessary to protect himself at that time.

Judgment affirmed.