alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.1


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1


TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 (“Amendment”) is entered
into this 3rd day of May 2005 by and between Darrell Jean (the “Employee”) and Mueller Group, Inc. (the “Company”) and amends the Employment Agreement dated as of February 18,
2005 between the Employee and the Company (the “Employment
Agreement”).


 


WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company desire
to amend the Employment Agreement to correct the incorrect reference in the
Employment Agreement to the bonus pool from which annual bonuses will be
payable to the Employee.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
covenants and conditions herein contained and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by
each party, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1.                                       Defined Terms. 
Capitalized words used but not defined in this Amendment have the
meanings given to them in the Employment Agreement.


 


2.                                       Annual Bonus.  Section 4(b)
of the Employment Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety with the
following


 


(b)                                 Annual
Bonus.  The Employee shall receive an
annual bonus, payable at the conclusion of each fiscal year, equivalent to not
less than five percent (5%) of the bonus pool applicable to compensate senior
executives of the Company (currently, the Senior Executive Bonus Pool of
Mueller Water Products, Inc., as established from time to time by the Board of
Directors of Mueller Water Products, Inc.).


 


3.                                       Status of Employment Agreement.  Except as specifically provided in this
Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly
executed this Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement as of the date and year
first above written.


 


	
   

  	
  MUELLER GROUP, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ DALE B. SMITH

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Dale B. Smith

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
    /s/
  DARRELL JEAN

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Darrell Jean
Form of Notice of Stock Option Grant to Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 Form of Notice of Stock Option Grant to Executive Officers under the Nonqualified Stock Option Plan 

 
             ,
20     
  
 [Name of Executive Officer] (Optionee)

 [Address] 
 [Address] 
  
 Dear [Name of Executive Officer], 
  
 At the direction of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Pemco Aviation
Group, Inc. (the “Company”), you are hereby notified that the Compensation Committee has granted you an option (the “Option”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Nonqualified Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), as amended
by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors and the Company’s shareholders, effective             , 20    . A copy of the Amended and
Restated Nonqualified Stock Option Plan (Plan Document) governing the Option granted to you is available upon request to             ,
             of the Company. Your attention is directed to all of the provisions of the Plan. The terms of the Option include those of the Plan and the following: 
  

	 	1.	Grant of Option. The Company grants the Optionee the right and option to purchase from the Company all or any part of an aggregate of ______ shares of the
Company’s $0.0001 par value Common Stock. The date of grant for this Option is ________, 20__. 

  

	 	2.	Price of Shares. During the term of this Option, the purchase price of the shares subject to this Option shall be __________________ ($__.__) which price is subject to
adjustment as provided in the Plan. 

  

	 	3.	Term of Option. This Option and all rights granted thereby and pursuant to the Plan shall terminate on the earlier of ______, 20__ or as provided by the Plan.


  

	 	4.	Exercise of Option. The shares subject to this Option shall vest and become exercisable over a ____-year period according to the following schedule: ______________.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, 100% of the shares subject to this Option shall become exercisable immediately upon a “Change of Control” of the Company as defined in your Employment Agreement. 

  
 At the time or times when you wish to exercise this Option, in whole or in part, please refer
to the provision of the Plan dealing with methods and formalities of exercise of your Option, using the Form of Exercise provided by the Company. 
  

	
	
	  
	(signature)
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-75,523-03 IN RE JOEY SULA, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 48,258 IN THE 400 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM F ORT BE ND COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has f

iled a motion for leave to file an application for a wr it of mandamus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed a motion for judgme nt nunc pro tunc on or about May 2, 2014, and afte r a hearing in Dec ember 2016, the trial court has not taken action on the motion. Relator prese nted his claim to the First Court of Appea ls, but was denied relief
. In re Sula , No. 01-17-00117- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] Apr. 20, 2017) (not designated for st publication). A trial c ourt has a ministerial duty to rule “upon a motion that is properly and timely prese nted to it for

a ruling .” State ex re l. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. , 236 S.W .3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Relator ha s alleg ed fa cts which, if true , could entitle him to mandamus relief
.2

In these circ umst an ce s , ad ditional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the J udg e of the 400 t h District Court of Fort Be nd County , shall file a re s p onse addressing whether Relator has properly filed a motion for judgme nt nunc pro tunc in that court. I f relat o r h as filed such a motion, the responde nt shall addre ss whether the m o tion has been ruled upon and, if the motion has not been
ru l ed upon, the responde nt shall discuss the rationale for not taking action on the motion. Respondent’s answ er sha ll be submitt ed withi n 30 day s of the date of this order . This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus will be held in abeyance until Respondent has subm i t t ed her response .
Filed: October

18, 2017 Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        MAR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                             DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                     $294,427
<SECURITIES>                                                     $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                $3,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     $0
<INVENTORY>                                                 $79,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           $379,458
<PP&E>                                                         $794
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             $380,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      $191,280
<BONDS>                                                          $0
<COMMON>                                                     $1,865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            $0
<PREFERRED>                                                      $0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 $187,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               $380,252
<SALES>                                                    $183,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           $183,451
<CGS>                                                      $130,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              $130,617
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          $(107,789)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               $0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            $(42,743)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        $(42,743)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  $0
<CHANGES>                                                        $0
<NET-INCOME>                                               $(42,743)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   $(.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 $(.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with this Quarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David I. Matson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Dated:
May 8, 2008

| |  |     |  |                                                          
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: |  | /s/DAVID I. MATSONDavid I. Matson Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,750                  11,347
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,054                  17,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                       382                     427
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,840,539               1,592,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,032                  50,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,915,176               1,668,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000                 100,000
<COMMON>                                           400                     399
<OTHER-SE>                                     730,973                 774,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,915,176               1,668,789
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,255                 106,822
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,737                  73,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,607                  17,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,656                  37,455
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                   8,908
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,656                  28,547
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .80                     .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80                     .68


</TABLE>
#### SESSUMS v. STATE.

No. 16745.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1934.

Stollenwerck & Stollenwerck, of Hillsboro, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder ; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Appellant inflicted a serious wound on George Wells with an axe. According to the version of the state; the injured party was making no demonstration at the time he was struck by appellant, and had in no manner provoked the difficulty. Appellant testified that a quarrel arose between him and the injured party relative to some wood. We quote from appellant’s testimony as follows: “And I made the remark then and there that anybody that said I went on the Lawless land and got anything without a right was a liar, and he (the injured party) just made a run for me coming right on me; of course I wasn’t aiming to fight, I didn’t want to fight him, but I was right on this woodpile and this axe was sitting there about five feet east of me, and he was coming at me and I just stepped over and picked up the axe and hit him. All I done in the world was to keep the man off of me, and when I kept him off of me I never hit him any more. I never said a word to him. When he was coming at me, his right hand was in his right hand pocket, just about like that (indicating). I thought he was making an attack on me. I thought he had a knife or something in his hand and was aiming to use it by the way he was coming at me with his hand in his pocket. * * * I was excited then when he made that run toward me. I felt like my life was in danger.”

The only instruction on self-defense embraced in the charge of the court reads as follows: “Upon the law of self-defense you are instructed that one charged with any grade of assault has the right of self-defense against an unlawful attack, although the attack does not amount to ah effort to inflict death or serious bodily injury. If you believe that the defendant committed the assault, (if he did so) as a means of defense against an unlawful attack made upon him by the said George Wells, then you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict ‘not guilty.’ ”

Appellant timely and properly objected to *250the charge for failing to instruct the jury that they must view the transaction from appellant’s standpoint alone as it reasonably appeared to him at the time. We deem the charge too restrictive. Appellant testified that he believed the injured party had a knife in his pocket and was preparing to draw it and kill him. The charge, in effect, confined the jury’s consideration to an actual attack by the injured party. Privett v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 455, 44 S.W.(2d) 694, and authorities cited.

The judgment -is reversed, and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00480-CV

In re Wardell Moore

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM FAYETTE COUNTY

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

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

 

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Filed: July 26, 2018
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Corey Williams, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered April 18, 2013, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered April 18, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; People v Martin, 112 AD3d 453, 454 [2013]). The arresting officer's testimony established that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was lawful, based upon the firsthand observations of a fellow officer, who observed defendant driving his vehicle at a high rate of speed without headlights, and these observations were imparted to the arresting officer (see People v Mitchell, 124 AD3d 912, 914 [2015]; People v Green, 13 AD3d 646 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 836 [2005]). Contrary to defendant's contention, "a police witness at a suppression hearing may establish probable cause by personal knowledge, as well as by information supplied by fellow officers" (People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 491 [2000]) and where the knowledge of the imparting officer is based on his first-hand observations, the People are not required to produce that officer at the suppression hearing (see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 420 [1999]). </p><p>Defendant failed to preserve his present contention that the court improperly took judicial notice of the applicable speed limit and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the Court was entitled to take judicial notice of the speed limit in the area where defendant was stopped (see People v Foster, 27 NY2d 47 [1970]; People v Heidelmark, 214 AD2d 767, 769 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 973 [1995]). In any event, the police properly stopped defendant's vehicle because he committed another traffic infraction by driving with his headlights off (see People v Richardson, 2 AD3d 175, 175 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 633 [2004]).  </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 22, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Adams, l(~j;;:rir{fJSrti OF 

.1 I I ~~ r i, i/·I"S f{ lA I Iui\! 

From: ·· · .. :r<"1

1:::r z···\ot:R,\Tjl)' r11r' ' .. '', -' .il [,_ !n \ l '10 Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

~;r t) I -~ 

ILliL 

Subject: 

Hi All, 

!0 

Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:55 PM 

2: 0 8 Lake Minchumina (AKEmerald@starband.net); Dan Hytry (hytrys@starband.net); Carol 

Schlentner; Rampart Business (Boyk@mosquitonet.com); Carina Kriska 

(singletactics@yahoo.com); Alaska DOT, Richard Sewell; 'Info@Doyan.com'; 

'Jerrylsaac@TananaChiefs.com'; 'EiaineEvans@HotMail.com'; 

'LanceBowie@YukonFiats.net' 

Devany, Dennis (OST); Adventure@NorthernAiaska.com; Wright Air Service, Bob Bursiel 

Request for Comments at Lake Minchumina and at Rampart, Alaska 

At Lake Minchumina, we received only one proposal, and that was from the incumbent, Wright Air Service. Wright 

submitted two options- please see the attachment for a description of Wright's proposal. 

At Rampart, we received only one proposal, and that was from the incumbent, Warbelow's. Warbelow's submitted one 

option- please see the attachment for a description of Warbelow's proposal. 

I am taking these two proposals to the docket, where by next week they should be able to be viewed. We ask that you 

carefully review the proposal pertaining to your community, submitted in response to Order 2012-6-8 requesting 

proposals, and submit comments to us no later than August 7, 2012. The comments of the community, especially 

elected officials, are a critically important element in our carrier-selection decision. We will docket this email, as well as 

any replies. 

As always, if you have questions, please give me a buzz. 

Kevin Adams 

202-366-1047 

1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     Insignia Financial Group, Inc. December 31, 1997 Form 10-K and is qualified
     in its entirety by reference to such 10-K filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0000870480
<NAME>  Insignia Financial Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>              <C>              <C>
                                      Restated         Restated         Restated
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-mos            6-mos            3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     12-31-97         12-31-97         12-31-97
<PERIOD-START>                        01-01-97         01-01-97         01-01-97
<PERIOD-END>                          9-30-97          6-30-97          3-31-97
<CASH>                                89,427           77,083           69,821
<RECEIVABLES>                         73,657           58,536           52,455
<PP&E>                                15,170           13,339           12,195
<Total Assets>                        568,768          530,224          486,809
<BONDS>                               58,417           58,674           68,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 143,993          143,978          143,943
<COMMON>                              291              292              290
<OTHER-SE>                            222,788          224,118          220,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          568,768          530,224          486,809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      254,630          154,527          67,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         197,921          118,766          51,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      39,738           21,540           10,339
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    5,843            3,942            2,005
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       7,879            7,630            3,340
<INCOME-TAX>                          3,152            3,052            1,336
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0                0                0
<NET-INCOME>                          4,727            4,578            2,004
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .16              .16              .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .15              .14              .06
        


</TABLE>
S. 2030 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To deem the compliance date for amended energy conservation standards for ceiling 

fan light kits to be January 21, 2020, 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 ‘‘Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation 

Harmonization Act’’. 

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE DATE FOR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARDS FOR CEILING FAN LIGHT KITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The compliance date for the amended energy 

conservation standards established for ceiling fan light kits in the 

final rule entitled ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fan Light Kits’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 580 

(January 6, 2016)) is deemed to be January 21, 2020. 

(b) CONFORMING CHANGES.—Not later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall make 

such technical and conforming changes to any regulation, guidance 

document, or procedure as may be necessary to implement subsection (a). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.