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

 
 

Exhibit 10.48    
    


 
 

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 twelve (12) 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) one (1) 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) one (1) 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: [insert date]
	

 	
 	

SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION
	

 	
 	

By	

    
 James F. Brashear

Corporate Secretary
	

 	
 	

SABRE INC.
	

 	
 	

By	

    
 James F. Brashear

Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and Corporate Secretary







	

 	
 	

[Executive]
	

 	
 	

Signed:	

 
	 	 	 	 	














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.48


ADDENDUM TO EXECUTIVE TERMINATION BENEFITS AGREEMENTS
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 50-382] 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Entergy Operations Inc. (the licensee), to withdraw its May 28, 1998, application, as supplemented, for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-38 for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. 

The proposed amendment would have modified facility Technical Specification 3.7.1.2 and Surveillance Requirement 4.7.1.2 for the emergency feedwater system. 

                    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 14, 1998 (63 FR 59593). However, by letter dated September 20, 2000, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.                 

                    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated May 28, 1998, as supplemented by letters dated January 31 and July 27, 2000, and the licensee's letter dated September 20, 2000, which withdrew the application for license amendment. These documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records                           ( print page 64265)                        will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site (the Electronic Reading Room).                 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of October 2000. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

N. Kalyanam, 

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 00-27512 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*ERNEST REELS

*Hubert J. Santos*and *Hope C. Seely,*in support of the petition.

Decided June 10, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17916) is denied.

BERDON and NORCOTT, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27768]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-260-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Settlement 
Conference

October 24, 2000.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Wednesday, November 1 and possibly continuing to 
November 2, 2000 at 10 a.m., at the offices of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
for the purpose of discussing the possible settlement of issues in the 
proceeding.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, contact William J. Collins at (202) 
208-0248.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27768 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M195
#### BRYAN TRACTOR & IMPLEMENT CO. v. PAGEL.

No. 10060.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

June 25, 1952.

John M. Barron, Bryan, for appellant.

Camp & Camp, Don G. Humble, Cameron, for appellee.

HUGHES, Justice.

This is a venue case in which Bryan Tractor and Implement Company appeals from an order overruling its plea of privilege to be sued in Brazos County where it resided.

Appellee is Ed O. Pagel who sued appellant for damages alleged to have been sustained in the purchase and use, by appellee, of a cotton picking machine sold by appellant.

To sustain venue in Milam County appel-lee relies upon Subd. 7, art. 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. which provides that in all cases of fraud suit may be brought in the county where the fraud was committed.

Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to show fraud.

Appellee testified that he purchased a Rust Cotton Picker from appellant through its Manager, Mr. Ted Hopkins. That Mr. Hopkins and a mechanic came to appellee’s home in Milam County and there represented to him that' the machine would pick 95% of his cotton. Appellee requested that the picker be demonstrated but was told the company did not permit this.

Relying on these representations appellee bought the cotton picker.

When put to use the machine destroyed about 30% of the cotton and appellee, after picking twelve acres with the machine, returned to the manual method of harvesting his crop.

Efforts were made by appellant to adjust the picker but his mechanic finally despaired saying “he just didn’t believe it was ever going to pick cotton successfully.”

Appellant takes the position that the above evidence constitutes nothing more than trade talk or promises of future per*606formance and hence not actionable as a species of fraud.

We cannot agree.

It was not mere idle talk that the machine would pick 95% of appellee’s cotton. This was a statement of fact, a very material fact. Nor was this statement a promise on the part of appellant to periom some act in the future. Appellant did not promise to do anything. The statement made was as to the present capacity of the machine to pick cotton. This was a statement of fact and since there is evidence that this representation was not true it is actionable if relied on by appellee to his damage. This the evidence clearly shows.

The fact that appellant did not manufacture the machine and that the representations as to its ability may have been innocently made and with the utmost good faith is immaterial. 20 Tex. Jur. p. 149.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, SBIR—“Measurement Modules for Prevention Interventions.”                    

*Date:*                         February 3, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 am to 10:30 am.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547, Bethesda, MD 20892-9547, (301) 435-1439.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphaisis Panel, SBIR—“Develop Prevention Research Dissemination.”                    

*Date:*                         February 3, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         10:30 am to 3 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547, Bethesda, MD 20892-9547, (301) 435-1439.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-2755 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 21.1

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF CHILES OFFSHORE INC.


NAME                                                   JURSDICTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiles Offshore Finance Corp.                             Delaware
Chiles Columbus LLC                                       Delaware
Chiles Magellan LLC                                       Delaware
Chiles Tonala LLC                                         Delaware
Chiles Discovery LLC                                      Delaware
Chiles Galileo LLC                                        Delaware



None of Chiles Offshore Finance Corp., Chiles Columbus LLC, Chiles Magellan LLC,
Chiles Tonala LLC, Chiles Discovery LLC or Chiles Galileo LLC has any
subsidiaries













NY2:\1029251\01\M26B01!.DOC\35287.0003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 5, 2014

jam 

# Order

Clerk November 5, 2014

1 50237 ( 19 )

RANDALL A. RAAR

,

Plai ntiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 50237

COA: 321248

KINROSS CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY WARDEN

,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 85 .00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$ 290 .00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
#### DEBORAH PHILLIPS *v.*DEBORAH PHILLIPS ET AL.

*Deborah Phillips,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided July 16, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 18267) is dismissed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1
 AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER
of the Audit Committee
of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.
  I. Purpose




---



##### 



II. Membership
   III. Meetings and Procedures
  2




---



##### 



IV. Powers and Responsibilities
 Interaction
with the Independent Auditor
 Appointment
and Oversight
 Pre-Approval
of Services
 3




---



##### 



Independence
of Independent Auditor
      Annual
Financial Statements and Annual Audit
 Meetings
with Management, the Independent Auditor and the Internal Auditor (if any)
   4




---



##### 



Separate
Meetings with the Independent Auditor
    Recommendation
to Include Financial Statements in Annual Report
 5




---



##### 



Quarterly
Financial Statements
 Meetings
with Management, the Independent Auditor and the Internal Auditor (if any)
 Internal
Audit (if Applicable)
 Appointment. The Committee shall review the appointment and replacement of the internal
auditor
 Separate Meetings with the Internal Auditor
 Other Powers and Responsibilities
     6




---



##### 



7
#### Fred Dempsey O’BRIEN, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 25980.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1952.

McCarthy, Snodgrass & Haynes, George S. McCarthy, Amarillo, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The appeal is from a conviction of the misdemeanor offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, the jury having assessed the punishment at 45 days in jail and a fine of $200.

Appellant’s application in due form asking that the appeal be dismissed is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**Exhibit 31****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Thomas L. Carter, certify that:1. I have reviewed this transition report on Form 10-K of the Championship Liquidating Trust(the “Liquidating Trust”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, changes infinancial condition and ash flows of the Liquidating Trust as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Liquidating Trust and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Liquidating Trust is made known to me by others within thisentity, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Liquidating Trust’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Liquidating Trust’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the Liquidating Trust’s most recentfiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the Liquidating Trust’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. This report discloses, based on my most recent evaluation for internal control over financialreporting: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Liquidating trust’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Liquidating Trust’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: March 27, 2007 By:                /s/ Thomas L. Carter    Thomas L. Carter       
19
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6856

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KEVIN LANGSTON, a/k/a Little One,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District 

Judge. (3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26)

Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Langston, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Langston appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Langston, No. 3:03-cr-00394-JRS-26 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 

2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Folander BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27112.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1954.

No attorney on appeal.

Henry Wade, Criminal Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*943PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the offense of rape; ■the punishment, fifteen years in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 11

- 00 078

- C R

______________________________

IN RE : BOBBY YATES

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bobby Yates filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asked this Court to order the

6th Judicial District Court of Lamar County to withdraw a gag order entered in connection with an

underlying sexual assault case, and also to direct that court to withdraw its denial of his mot ion for

continuance. We have received a response from the trial judge, with copies of orders attached

which rescind the gag order in its entirety and grant a continuance so that a newly retained attorney

can represent Yates at trial. The issues raised by the mandamus are therefore moot.

We deny t he petition for writ of mandamus.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: April 25 , 2011

Date Decided: April 26 , 2011

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.54

                           CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS, INC.

               MAXIMUM ANNUAL CASH BONUSES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

      On November 30, 2005, based on the recommendation of the Compensation
Committee of our Board of Directors, our independent directors of the Board
approved increases in the maximum annual cash bonuses payable to our executive
officers. Effective January 1, 2006, each executive officer will be eligible for
an annual maximum cash bonus for 2006 and each subsequent year of 30% of annual
base salary (previously eligible for 25% of annual base salary), or 45% of
annual base salary (previously eligible for 40% of annual base salary) for Dr.
Rubin, our chief executive officer, the amount of such bonus, if any, as
determined by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee may make
actual cash bonus awards that may be greater or less than the annual maximum
cash bonus based on overall corporate performance and individual performance.
None of our executive officers is guaranteed any annual cash bonus.