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




Amendment No. 1 to the 
CHC Group Ltd. Omnibus Incentive Plan
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the CHC Group Ltd. Omnibus Incentive Plan, (the “Plan”), was approved by the Board of CHC Group Ltd. (the “Company”) on June 25, 2015, subject to approval of the Company’s stockholders.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.
Background
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Amendment No. 1, the Plan provides, among other things, that (x) a maximum of 7,500,000 Ordinary Shares are available for Awards under the Plan (the “Absolute Share Limit”) and (y) Options or SARs representing no more than 1,000,000 Ordinary Shares may be granted to any individual Participant during any single fiscal year of the Company (the “Individual Annual Option Limit”); and
WHEREAS, on the basis of a recommendation from the Compensation Committee of the Board, the Board has determined that it is appropriate, advisable and in the best interests of the Company, subject to approval of the Company’s stockholders, to increase (x) the Absolute Share Limit by 6,921,104 Ordinary Shares, from 7,500,000 Ordinary Shares to 14,421,104 Ordinary Shares and (y) the Individual Annual Option Limit to 2,000,000 Ordinary Shares in respect of Options or SARs.
1.    Amendments.
a.    Absolute Share Limit.  Clause (i) of Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended to replace the number “7,500,000” with the number “14,421,104”.
b.    Individual Annual Option Limit.  Clause (ii) of Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended to replace the number “1,000,000” with the number “2,000,000”.
2.    No Other Effect on the Plan.  In all other respects, the form, terms and provisions of the Plan remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00016-CR

IN RE JAMES J. ZARYCHTA, JR.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed February 24, 2010

Do not publish 

[OT06]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

ROBERT SCHELSKE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

No. 6:22-CV-049-H

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official

capaciry as United States Secretary of

Defense, et al.,

Defendants

ORDER

Before the Court is the defendants' Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to

Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and to File a Reply in Support of Defendants'

Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 97. For the reasons stated in the motion, the motion is

granted. It is therefore ordered that defendants shall fi.le both (1) a response to the plaintiffs'

Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 92), and (2) a reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss

(Dkt. No. 88) by no later than March 10, 2023. Any responsive pleading and any reply filed

by that date shall be deemed timely.

So ordered on February Ll ,zozl.

N

JAME WESLEY RIX

D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 99 Filed 02/21/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2248
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 174 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 174

    Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should 
recognize the importance of auto dealerships to communities across the 
country by encouraging remedies for those franchises eliminated during 
                 recent car manufacturer bankruptcies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2009

 Mr. Issa (for himself and Mr. Smith of Texas) submitted the following 
 concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 
                              and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should 
recognize the importance of auto dealerships to communities across the 
country by encouraging remedies for those franchises eliminated during 
                 recent car manufacturer bankruptcies.

Whereas car dealerships have a long established and important relationship with 
        communities across the country;
Whereas car dealerships employ over 1,000,000 people nationwide with each 
        dealership employing an average of 55 people;
Whereas car dealerships sponsor many community events in each of the communities 
        in which they serve;
Whereas the owners of car dealerships made large investments and other 
        sacrifices in establishing and building their businesses, sometimes for 
        generations;
Whereas the global financial collapse affected every industry dependent upon 
        consumer purchasing, and none more so than new car sales;
Whereas General Motors and Chrysler entered bankruptcy proceedings and dissolved 
        numerous dealership franchises claiming doing so was needed to preserve 
        the manufacturers' long-term viability;
Whereas many of the dissolved dealerships had histories of strong sales, even up 
        until their dissolution;
Whereas many of the dissolved dealerships wished to stay in business;
Whereas experienced dealerships provide expertise and leadership for the 
        manufacturer they represent;
Whereas the dissolved dealerships had an innate value in reputation, brand, and 
        territory;
Whereas upon dissolution this value was transferred to remaining franchisees for 
        no consideration;
Whereas the Federal Government now owns a significant interest in both General 
        Motors and Chrysler; and
Whereas Congress recognizes the inherit unfairness, without sufficient process, 
        of the dissolution of these franchises: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the President should work to find 
creative and constructive remedies that are mutually beneficial to both 
the auto manufacturers and injured parties.
                                 <all>
```
#### SANDERS v. STATE.

No. 21125.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 28, 1940.

Newland, Cornett & Whitworth, of Linden, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for assault to murder without malice, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

No facts are brought forward.

The only bill of exception relates to an argument of the district attorney. Objection thereto was sustained and the jury directed not to consider same. We do not regard the argument of such character that the court could not control' it by a withdrawal from the jury.

.The judgment is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

I N RE; RUBEN VASQUEZ

,

Relator

, §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00 267

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN

MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Ruben Vasquez has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the trial

court abused its discretion in abating the litigation and compelling arbitration. A writ of

mandamus will issue only if the trial court clearly abused its discretion and if the relator has no

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex.

2004) (orig. proceeding)

. A mandamus petition must be accompanied by a n appendix or record

containing “a certified or sworn copy of any .

. . document showing the matter complained of

. . . .”

TEX.R.APP.P. 52.3(k)(1)(A)(appendix); see also TEX.R.APP. P . 52.7(a)(1)(record). The relator

“must certify that .

. . every factual s tatement in the petition is supported by competent evidence

included in the appendix or record.” TEX.R.APP. P . 52.3(j).

Relator has provided certified copie s of documents showing the matter complained of,

however no certification und er Rule 52.3(j) was pr ovided. The Clerk of this Court notified

Relator by letter on August 28, 2012 that his mandamus petition was defective because it lacked

the certification required b y Rule 52.3(j) and request ed th e certification by September 7, 2012.

No certification was provided by that date and no response from Relator has been received2

regarding any attempt to correct th e deficiency. Relator’s petition for writ of mand amus is

procedurally deficient

. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

October 3 , 2012

CHRISTOPHER ANTCLIFF, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.
<PAGE>   1


                 TANDY BRANDS ACCESSORIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


EXHIBIT (23):  CONSENTS OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL


23.1     Consent of Ernst & Young LLP

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Tandy Brands Accessories, Inc. of our report dated August 10, 2001, included
in the 2001 Annual Report to Stockholders of Tandy Brands Accessories, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-41262, 33-46814, 33-91996, 33-75114, 333-8579, 333-94251,
333-38526 and 333-55436) of (i) our report dated August 10, 2001, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Tandy Brands Accessories, Inc.
included in the 2001 Annual Report to Stockholders of Tandy Brands Accessories,
Inc. and (ii) our report dated August 10, 2001, with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended June 30, 2001.




                                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP





Fort Worth, Texas
September 21, 2001
#### TREVINO v. STATE.

No. 22632.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1944.

R. R. Smith and Frank W. Steinle, both of Jourdanton, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was sentenced to twenty years in the penitentiary upon a jury verdict and brings this appeal.

The record is before us without a statement of facts. A very extended amended motion for new trial refers to numerous *952bills of exception by number, yet we find no such bills in the record before us.

The court refused appellant’s special requested charge number one which appears in the record, but it does not appear that any exception was taken to his ruling. Furthermore, we are unable to appraise the merits of such request in the absence of a statement of facts.

The motion for a new trial is accompanied by a great number of affidavits to support his plea, based on newly discovered evidence, but these are likewise insufficient in the absence of a statement of facts.

We have carefully examined the record and find the presentation of the case in proper form; the charge of the court meets all requirements in so far as we are able to determine without a statement of facts; the judgment and sentence are, in every respect, regular, and it is our conclusion that nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Calendar No. 56

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1430

AN ACT

To provide for a temporary increase in the public

debt limit.

APRIL 3 (legislative day, MARCH 3), 1993

Received, read twice and placed on the calendar
II

Calendar No. 56

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1430

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 3 (legislative day, MARCH 3), 1993

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

4 During the period beginning on the date of the enact5 ment of this Act and ending on September 30, 1993, the

6 public debt limit set forth in subsection (b) of section 3101

7 of title 31, United States Code, shall be temporarily in8 creased to $4,370,000,000,000.

Passed the House of Representatives April 2 (legislative day, April 1), 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
# AGENCY: 

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). 

# ACTION: 

New Collection of Information. 

# SUMMARY: 

                        The NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain comments from the public. It was originally published on                         Start Printed Page 6638                        November 26, 1999 (Vol. 64, No. 227, p. 66507) Five comment letters were received.                     

# DATES: 

Comments will be accepted until March 13, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES: 

Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to NCUA Clearance Officer or OMB Reviewer listed below: 

Clearance Officer: Mr. James L. Baylen (703) 518-6411, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428, Fax No. 703-518-6433, E-mail: jbaylen@ncua.gov. 

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the information collection requests, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the NCUA Clearance Officer, James L. Baylen, (703) 518-6411. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposal for the following collection of information: 

*OMB Number:*                    Not applicable.                 

*Form Number:*                    Not applicable.                 

*Type of Review:*                    New collection.                 

*Title:*                    Survey on Service to People of Modest Means.                 

*Description:*                    NCUA is considering policy changes which could result in substantial impact on credit unions. The results of the survey will be used to guide NCUA in the policy making process.                 

*Respondents:*                    Federal credit unions.                 

*Estimated No. of Respondents/Recordkeepers:*                    6,700.                 

*Estimated Burden Hours Per Response:*.5 hours.                 

*Frequency of Response:*                    One-time.                 

*Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:*                    3,350.                 

*Estimated Total Annual Cost:*                    $55,844.50.                

By the National Credit Union Administration Board on February 3, 2000. 

Becky Baker, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-3039 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535-01-U
Exhibit 10.1


Summary of Director Compensation Policies
 (As of May 1, 2005)


Retainers and Fees.  Non-employee directors serving on the board of directors of West Coast Bancorp (“Bancorp”) are paid annual retainers for board service and meeting fees.  Directors who are employees of Bancorp or the Bank receive no fees for their services as a director.


The chairman of the board of directors receives annual cash compensation of $38,000 per year, the chairman of the audit & compliance committee receives $32,000 per year, and each other committee chair receives $26,000 per year.  All other directors receive annual cash compensation of $20,000.  


All directors also receive $300 for each committee meeting that they attend (whether as a member of a committee or at the request of a committee).  Directors who also serve on the board of directors of Bancorp’s subsidiary, West Coast Trust Company, Inc. (“West Coast Trust”), also receive $200 for each meeting of the board of directors of West Coast Trust.  The chairman of the West Coast Trust board receives an additional $1,000 per year.


Equity Incentive Awards.  Directors are entitled to participate in Bancorp’s 2002 Stock Incentive Plan.  Recent practice has been to grant all directors a fully-vested option to purchase shares of Bancorp’s common stock on an annual basis and to make periodic restricted stock grants to directors.  In 2005, each director was granted a fully vested option to purchase 2,050 shares with an exercise price equal to the market price on the date of grant.  Each director was also granted 700 shares of restricted stock vesting in a single installment on the first anniversary of the date of grant.  Whether to grant awards, the type of award, the number of shares to be granted each year, and the terms of each award are at the discretion of Bancorp’s board of directors.  


Reimbursement and Fees for Attendance at Director Education Programs.  Directors are entitled to payment or reimbursement of all out of pocket costs of attendance at approved director education programs.  In addition, Bancorp will compensate directors for time spent at education programs at a rate of $200 per day (or partial day) spent at an approved program.


Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan.  Non-employee directors are also entitled to participate in Bancorp’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan (“Directors’ DCP”).  Under the Directors’ DCP, directors may elect to defer payment of some or all of their directors’ fees.  Contributions are transferred to a so-called “rabbi trust” and may be invested in a number of investment funds or in Bancorp common stock.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                 

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information website at www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 24, 2000. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713: 

                    1. Summit Bank Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia; to engage                     *de novo*                     through its subsidiary, CashMart, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia (in organization) in providing check cashing services, selling money orders and other consumer-type payment instruments, including prepaid phone cards, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(13) of Regulation Y. See also                     *Midland Bank,*                     PLC, 76 Federal Reserve Bulletin 860 (1990) and                     *Popular, Inc.,*                     84 Federal Reserve Bulletin 481 (1998).                 

Start Printed Page 6602
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 4, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-3029 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                              |                                                |                                   |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                              |                                                |
|                         |                                           |                              |
| Dated:              June 28, 2006 |                                           | */s/              Matt Wayrynen*  |
|                              | Matt              Wayrynen, Chief Executive Officer |
|                              | (Principal              Executive Officer)          |
Sl()-l()()4()7-()23 

-Marcli;24;;2pl0:;;.:::.:;:;:vr^^ 

Washingtbni DC 20590 

Docket DbT-OST-2010^«^ 

Dear Mr. Secretary; 

TTiaok you for the opporturuty^ to express our support for the application for antitrust 

immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan 

Airlines. As a iiew destination for American Airlines, Cheyenne is looking forward to 

•thecpi^^^ 

"^e feelj^^^^ alliance betv/eeh AA and JAL is vital for oneAvorld to cpnapete 

effectively with the Star and SkyTeam alliance. This increased interalliance competition 

\wll intiirhj^iiliance the benefits of the Department's Opeh Skies policy - first by 

solidifying IJ.S.-Japan Open Skies, then by serving as a foundation for further 

• liberalization across Asia. 

We encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application as it would 

eniable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver highly 

competitive a|r transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will offer 

customers more destination, scheduling arid pricing options and will help ensure that 

customers continue to benefit from! having three competitive air alliances to choose from. 

Thank you for consideration of this issue. 

Sincerely, m 

Darren Riidloff 

CEOOFFICIAJL MAIIL 

Cheyanne Area CoaT«Btt6n *Vl8itorB Bureau 

One l)gp«yt Square. 121 W. Pf t St.. Bte. 202 ' 

CfcereBtte. Vromlng aarioi 

p. QQO.4a6.5009 / ;07.776.5I3? fi 307.778.;i90 

M r * WWW.CHEYENNE.ORC
|  | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 6, 2017 | /s/ James N. Phillips   |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
|                | James N. Phillips       |
|                | Chief Executive Officer |

|        | /s/ Nicholas Robbins-Cherry |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   | Nicholas Robbins-Cherry     |
|   | Chief Financial Officer     |

----