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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22

                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                 LEAR CORPORATION LONG-TERM STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                 (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE MAY 3, 2001)

            The Lear Corporation Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan (As Amended and
Restated Effective May 3, 2001) is amended, effective November 10, 2005, in the
following particulars:

            1. By substituting the following for the last sentence of Section
      7.6:

            "The payment upon SAR exercise may be made in cash, in Shares of
      equivalent Fair Market Value or in some combination of the two."

                                    * * * * *
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 23

- 1543

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Travon Lavelle Blackman

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: July 2 4 , 2023 Filed: July 27, 2023 [Unpubl ished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Travon Lavelle Blackman appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offens e. T he district court 1 imposed an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1) to run

1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.-2- consecutively to an undischarged federal sentence. Having jurisdiction und er 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the sentence.

Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasoning for running the enhanced sentenced consecutively to the undischarged sentence, and procedurally unreasonable because the court did not explain how it applied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 in concluding the sentences should be run consecu tively.

The sentence was neither procedurally, nor substantively, unreasonable. See
United States v. Pierson , No. 22

- 1918, 2023 WL 4442996, at *6 (8th Cir. July 11, 2023) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion). The district court appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its decision to run the instant and prior sentences consecutively. See
United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461

- 62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (procedural errors include failing to consider § 3553(a) factors and adequately explain chosen sentence; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States v. McDonald

, 521 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has “wide discretion” to order sentence to be served consecutively to undischarged sentence); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), (b) (“if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively”; court should consider § 3553(a) factors in making such determination); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3; United States v. Latha m , 667 Fed. Appx. 594, 595 (8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per curiam) (noting district court need not twice recite considerations under § 3553(a); court’s discussion of the relevant factors left “no doubt” why it imposed a consecutive sentence).-3- Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non

- frivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00636-CV

Rodney Wayne Symons, II, Appellant

v.

Jill Ann Symons, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 428TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 10-1254, HONORABLE WILLIAM R. HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Rodney Wayne Symons, II has informed this Court that he no longer

wishes to pursue this appeal and has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss it. Appellant’s counsel

states that he has conferred with counsel for appellee Jill Ann Symons, who does not oppose this

motion. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: October 30, 2013
Exhibit 10.3 - Summary of the Award Levels and Performance Goals for the Named
      Executive Officers


    Exhibit
      10.3

     

    Summary
      of the Award Levels and Performance Goals

    for
      the Named Executive Officers

    of
      Brown Shoe Company, Inc.

     

    
      	 	
              Incentive
                Award as a Percentage of Base Salary (1)
                

            
	
              Name
                and Title of Executive Officer

            	
              Minimum

            	
              Target

            	
              Maximum

            
	
              Ronald
                A. Fromm

              Chairman
                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

            	
              0%

            	
              80%

            	
              160%

            
	
              Diane
                M. Sullivan

              President

            	
              0

            	
              70

            	
              140

            
	
              Joseph
                W. Wood

              President,
                Famous Footwear

            	
              0

            	
              65

            	
              130

            
	
              Gary
                M. Rich

              President,
                Brown Shoe Wholesale

            	
              0

            	
              60

            	
              120

            
	
              David
                H. Schwartz 

              Executive
                Counsel to the Chairman

            	
              0

            	
              60

            	
              120

            
	
              Andrew
                M. Rosen

              Senior
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

            	
              0

            	
              65

            	
              130

            


    

    


     

    	(1)  	
            The
              2006 annual incentive plan provides for cash incentive payments linked
              to
              the achievement of financial objectives as measured by the earnings
              performance of the Company and/or the earnings and gross margin
              performance of the Company’s operating divisions, as compared to targeted
              levels, as well as individual objectives.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3194 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to remove certain special deference provided by courts to the Bureau 

of Consumer Financial Protection when the Bureau is interpreting provisions of a Federal consumer financial law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 

Mr. DUFFY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to remove certain special deference 

provided by courts to the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection when the Bureau is interpreting provisions 

of a Federal consumer financial law. 

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 ‘‘Bureau of Consumer 

5 Financial Protection Judicial Fairness Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3194 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF SPECIAL DEFERENCE. 

2 Section 1022(b)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

3 Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 

4 5512(b)(4)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000936094
<NAME>                        LINC Capital, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                6,493
<SECURITIES>                                          1,573
<RECEIVABLES>                                         7,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                          3,365
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                               32,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                        8,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      182,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                             112,980
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             29,285
<OTHER-SE>                                           12,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        182,735
<SALES>                                              23,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     36,044
<CGS>                                                18,958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        18,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     18,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      3,762
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    6,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       7,360
<INCOME-TAX>                                          2,923
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   4,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          4,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.83
        


</TABLE>
#### Ex parte McCLAIN.

No. 25914.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant filed this, his application, with the District Court in Brown County, Texas, seeking to secure his release from the custody of the Sheriff of Brown County who held him by reason of a judgment of conviction in the County Court. That case has been appealed and affirmed, Tex.Crim. App., 246 S.W.2d 205, the mandate was issued and the Sheriff was holding him in obedience to the orders of this court.

The District Court had no jurisdiction to hear this application and thereby interfere with the mandates of this court. After the hearing proper order was entered refusing the relief prayed for and appeal was taken. The case is without merit. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

No motion for rehearing will be permitted to be filed in this cause.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 12.1


          STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                  EXHIBIT 12.1

                                   ETOYS INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      1998               1999             2000
                                                  =========          =========          =========
<S>                                            <C>              <C>               <C>
Pre-tax loss from continuing operations
                                                     $2,267            $28,557          $189,626
Fixed charges:
      Interest expense,
        including amortization of debt
        financing costs                                  15                 47             4,008
      Interest component of rent
        expenses on operating leases                      8                 95               939

Total fixed charges:                                 $   23            $   142          $  4,947
                                                  =========          =========         =========
Ratio of loss to fixed charges                          (a)                (a)               (a)
                                                  =========          =========         =========

---------------------
</TABLE>

(a)  As a result of the loss incurred for the years ended March 31, 1998,
1999 and 2000, the ratio coverage was less than 1:1 as eToys was unable to
cover the indicated fixed charges. eToys must generate additional earnings of
$2,267, $28,557, and $189,626 for the years ended March 31, 1998, 1999 and
2000, respectively, to achieve a coverage of 1:1.
EXHIBIT 99.6
           Management Assertion for Certificate Series 1997 C-2

<PAGE>

                              MANAGEMENT ASSERTION

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1997, CRIIMI MAE Services
Limited Partnership has complied with the minimum servicing standards
set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same
period, CRIIMI MAE Services Limited Partnership had in effect a fidelity
bond and errors and omissions policy in the amount of $20 million.


/s/Vicki Speights
Vicki Speights
Vice President, Mortgage Servicing
February 27, 1998

/s/Brian Hanson
Brian Hanson
Group Vice President
February 27, 1998

/s/Cynthia O. Azzara
Cynthia O. Azzara
Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
February 27, 1998

/s/Dawn E. Bowman
Dawn E. Bowman
Vice President/Controller
February 27, 1998

<PAGE>
Exhibit
31.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I, Andrew
Stewart, certify that:




1.  I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Man-AHL Diversified I L.P.
(“registrant”);




2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.




By:  /s/
Andrew Stewart




__________________________________


Andrew
Stewart


President
and Chief Executive Officer


March 31,2009
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.50    
    


 
  ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS    
    


	1.
	Continuation Period pursuant to Subparagraph 1(d) of the Executive Termination Benefits Agreement shall mean "the period of time
beginning on the Termination Date and ending twenty-four (24) months thereafter."



	2.
	The
following language shall be added as Subparagraph 4(a) of the Executive Termination Benefits Agreement: 



The
Company will pay to the Executive the sum of (i) two (2) times the greater of (A) the Executive's effective annual base salary at the Termination Date or (B) the
Executive's effective annual base salary immediately prior to the Change in Control, plus (ii) two (2) times the greater of (X) the highest annual bonus awarded to the Executive
under the Company's Variable Compensation Plan or any other bonus plan (whether paid currently or on a deferred basis) with respect to any twelve (12) consecutive month period during the last
two (2) fiscal years ending prior to the Termination Date or (Y) the highest target bonus rate applicable to the Executive for any period during such prior two (2) year period,
multiplied by the applicable annual base salary determined under clause (i) of this Section 4(a); the resulting amount to be paid in a lump sum on the first day of the month following
the Termination Date. 



	 	 	Dated:
	

 	
 	

SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION
	

 	
 	

By	

 
	 	 	 	 	
 James F. Brashear

Corporate Secretary
	

 	
 	

SABRE INC.
	

 	
 	

By	

 
	 	 	 	 	
 James F. Brashear

Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Corporate Secretary





	

 	
 	

Signed:	

 
	 	 	 	 	














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.50


ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS
. \ R-963 

### OFF,ICE OF 

# THEAFTQR&WY 

# GENERAL

**AUSTIN.**TEXAS
PRICE DANIEL AITOR?aEY

GENERAL December 13, 1947
Honorable Paul H. Brown Opinion No. V-455 Secretary of State Capitol Building Re: The legality of chartering a Austin, Texas corporation under Art. 1302, Sec. 

### 9,V.C.S., to maintain ATTN: William E. Stapp bicycle, automobile, motorChief, Charter Division cycle, and airplane racing. Dear Sir: You have requested the opinion ofthis Department upon the following situation:

“This office has received an application for charter for aproposed domestic corporation. Proper fees have been remitted, and the charter and all submitted instruments are inproper form for filing. “The stated purpose, clause is ‘The ~purpose fork which it is formed is to support a club for the maintenance of innocent sports, to wit, bicycle racing, automobile racing, motorcycle racing and airplane racing; all of such racing involving only legal contests ofendurance and skill and pursuant to and as .authorised ~bySection 9, ofArticle 1302, Revised Civil Statutes ofTexas, ,1925.’

‘Are these transactions ‘sports’ within the meaning ofArticle 1302 (9)? That is, would this office bejustified, inyour opinion, in approving and filing the charter with the stated purpose clause? ” Section 9 ofArticle 1302, Revised Civil Statutes of 1925 is as follows:
.

“The purposes for which private corporations may be formed are: . . . 9. To support and maintain bicycle clubs and other innocent sports.R Since it is the settled law in Texas that words shall be given their ordinary meaning, the question here to be decide~dis whether or not bicycle racing, automobile racing, motorcycle racing, and airplace racing are “sportsm as used within the meaning of Section 9supra.Honorable Paul H. Brown, Page 2 (V-455)

race I: Webster’s International Dictionary defines the verb “to

“To run or engage in a race; to compete in speed; as, the horses raced; to race for America’s cup; . . . --

to run, sail, row, etc., a race with or to cause to contend in a race; to drive athigh speed; u

. . . and the word “racing,* as anou11:

“Horse races collectively as asport, . . .” (Emphasis supplied)

‘Racing’ as qualified by the words bicycle, automobile, motorcycle, and airplane means the exercise of competitive shill by human beings by use ofthe respective vehicles in such competition; andhence under the broad generic meaning would constitute a
‘sport” within the intention ofthe Legislature as expressed in Saction ,9supra.

The purpose clause refers to definite sports as required by the Supreme Court in the case ofSmith v. Wortham, 106Tex. 106, 157S. W. 740, and goes even farther than is required by the rule therein enunciated.

Itis the opinion ofthis Department that the Secretary of State isjustified in approving and filing the proposed charter with the stated purpose clause. SUMMARY

A corporation may be legally chartered to support aclub for the maintenance of innocent sports, such as bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, and airplane racing under the provisions of Sec. 9, Art. 1302, R.C.S. ofTexas, 1925. Yours very truly APPROVED ATT0RNE.Y GENERAL OF TEXAS

CKR/JCP C. K. Richards Assistant
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Samuel Gonzalez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00499-CR

Trial court case number: 1523996

Trial court: 185th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a letter with the Court stating that he no longer desires 

to pursue this appeal and has instructed his appointed counsel to file a motion for voluntary 

dismissal of the appeal. To date, neither a motion to dismiss the appeal nor an appellant’s brief 

have been filed on appellant’s behalf. Accordingly, the Court requests that within 10 days of this 

order appellant’s appointed counsel file either (1) a motion for voluntary dismissal complying 

with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure; or (2) if appellant desires to pursue 

the appeal, an appellant’s brief.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Gordon Goodman____

Acting individually 

Date: ___September 3, 2019___