alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w14



 





Exhibit 10.14




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



This Amendment to Employment Agreement entered into as of September 22, 2004,
(the “Effective Date”), by and between Remington Oil and Gas Corporation (the
“Company”) and                      (the “Executive”).



WHEREAS, the Company entered into an employment agreement with the Executive
effective                      (the “Employment Agreement”);



WHEREAS, as a result of extensions, the term of the Employment Agreement is set
to expire on                     ;



WHEREAS, Paragraph 4.2(3) of the Employment Agreement sets forth the
Executive’s benefits should the Executive terminate his employment with the
Company for Good Reason or his employment is terminated within 24 months of a
Change of Control;



WHEREAS, it was the intent of the Compensation Committee and the Board of
Directors of the Company at the time of execution of the Employment Agreement
that upon the Executive’s termination of employment for the reasons covered in
Paragraph 4.2(3) of the Employment Agreement, the Executive shall, among other
things, be entitled, to 2.99 times the sum of his then current Base Salary and
the Targeted Bonus (not subject to reduction);



WHEREAS, Paragraph 4.2(3) of the Employment Agreement as executed makes
reference to the terms “two and ninety-nine one hundredths percent” and
“(2.99%)” that are inconsistent with the intent of the Employment Agreement;
and



WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board wishes to clarify through this
Amendment to Employment Agreement that upon termination of the Executive’s
employment under the conditions contained in Paragraph 4.2(3), the Executive
shall, among other things, be entitled to 2.99 times the sum of his then
current Base Salary and the Targeted Bonus (not subject to reduction).



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements of the parties contained
herein, it is agreed as follows:





	1.	 	Paragraph 4.2(3) of the Employment Agreement, as amended, is hereby
amended to read in subpart (b) as follows:
	 
	 	 	The Company shall pay the Executive as severance pay and in lieu of any
further compensation for periods subsequent to the Termination Date, in a
single payment, an amount in cash equal to 2.99 times the sum of (i) the
Executive’s then current Base Salary and (ii) the Targeted Bonus (not
subject to reduction),
















 





	2.	 	This Amendment to Employment Agreement amends no other terms and
provisions of the Employment Agreement and such terms and provisions
remain in full force and effect.
	 
	3.	 	All capitalized terms contained but not defined herein shall have
the meaning assigned in the Employment Agreement, as amended.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment to
Employment Agreement as of the Effective Date.




REMINGTON OIL AND GAS CORPORATION



By:                                                                        



Executive:
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officers of the registrant certify that the Amendment
Number 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ending
March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)) and that
information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the registrant.

|                       |  |                                                                                                    
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: October 16, 2003 |  | /s/ Philip S. TabbinerPhilip S. Tabbiner
President and Chief Executive Officer                     
|                      
|                       |  |                                                                                                    
|                      
|Date: October 16, 2003 |  | /s/ William L. Ginna, Jr.William L. Ginna, Jr.
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                      
|                       |  |                                                                                                    
|                      
|Date: October 16, 2003 |  | /s/ Frederick D. SancilioFrederick D. Sancilio
Executive Chairman
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. 18758.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1937.

Frank D. Ivey, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for murder; punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

The record is here without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21048]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This 
meeting will be held via teleconference.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 16, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(718) 834-2203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee will be held Wednesday, October 16, 
2024, at 11 a.m. eastern time. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate 
must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information, please contact 
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP 
Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or 
contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will 
include TAP 2024 committee project focus areas.

    Dated: September 9, 2024.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2024-21048 Filed 9-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2022049EN.01000101.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10491 – ALLIANZ / INTELSAT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 49/01)

On 21 January 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10491. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10491. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### Ex parte CURTIS.

No. 18671.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

Jesse E. Martin and Arthur Lee Moore, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

LATTIMÓRE, Judge.

This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus.

After the adjournment of this court, in June, 1936, relator presented to the honorable Presiding Judge of this court his application for a writ of habeas corpus, setting out that on the 13th day of August, 1936, an “Affidavit for information” was filed in the justice court of precinct No. 1 of Tarrant county, charging that relator “Did then and there unlawfully keep and was interested in keeping premises for the purpose of being used as a place to bet, wager and gamble on dog races.” The petition further set out that a warrant was issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Tarrant county, who arrested relator and was holding him in custody “By reason, of the filing of said affidavit for information and issuance and service of said warrant.” A copy of the warrant is attached to the application. It is also set up in the application that request had been made of the various judges of Tarrant county for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus herein, which had been categorically denied by said judges.

As far as this court is informed and. knows, there is no offense against the laws of the state of Texas, within the jurisdiction of any justice of the peace, such as is described and referred to in relator’s application. The jurisdiction of the justice of peace court extends only to misdemeanor cases, and in no event is a prosecution in the justice court by information.

It being clear that the offense, if any, attempted to be charged in the affidavit for information was not one of which the justice court had jurisdiction, the writ is granted, and the court below is held to be without authority to issue the warrant in question, and hence the detention of relator thereunder is illegal. The discharge of the relator is ordered.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN A EPI FANI A G ON ZALE Z TA LA M A N TES, P et i t i on er , v. M IC H A E L B . M U K A S E Y , A tt orney G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71537 A ge nc yN o. A 096- 360- 451 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A naE pi f ani aG onz a l e z T a l a m ant e s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pro se f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng her 

# FI LED JU N 08 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 71537 2 m o tio n to r e is s u e th e B I A ’s p r io ro r d e r . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , L araT o rr es v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 8 3 F .3 d9 6 8 , 9 7 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , am ended b y 404 F . 3d 1105 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ), an dw e g ran tth e p et i t i o n an drem an dfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. T he B IA abused i t s di sc re t i on by fa i l i ng t o add re ss the decl ar at i on G on za l ez T a l a m a nt e s s ubm i tt e d t o s how tha ts he di d notr e c e i ve the B I A ’ s N ove m be r22, 2 0 0 6 o r d e r . See Si ng h v. G on zales , 494 F . 3d 1170, 1172 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( pr e s um pt i on of

pr ope rm a i l i ng c r e a t e d bytr ans m i tt a l of c ove rl e tt e rm aybe ove r c om e bye vi de nc e of non- r e c e i ptbyape t i t i one rorc ouns e l ) . W e r e m and f or th e B I A to r e v ie w th e e v id e n c e in th e f ir s t in s tan c e a n dto d e te rm in e w h e th e rit is s uf f i c i e ntt o ove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on of m a i l i ng. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
#### DICKEY v. COCKE.

No. 9594.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 22, 1935.

Corrigan & Fraser, of San Antonio, Walter Petsch, of Kerrville, and Leonard Brown, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Emmett B. Cocke and Morriss & Mor-riss, all of San Antonio, for appellee.

BICKETT, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by C. W. Dickey from • a judgment rendered against him by the *440district court in favor of Emmett B. Cocke for $814.93, with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum from the date of judgment, April 9, 1934, and for the foreclosure of a lien upon personal property.

The case was tried before a jury. There was no objection made to the special issue submitted to the jury; nor was the submission of any special issue requested. The motion for new trial contained two grounds, in most general terms, to the effect that the verdict was unsupported by, and contrary to, the evidence.

The matters complained of upon this appeal, not constituting fundamental error, if error at all, and not having been -presented to the trial court in the motion for new trial or otherwise, were waived and cannot be considered by this court. Thompson v. Caldwell (Tex. Com. App.) 36 S.W.(2d) 999, 1000; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Booles (Tex. Com. App.) 276 S. W. 667; Universal Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Armstrong (Tex. Civ. App.) 63 S.W.(2d) 225. In the first case cited, the court, speaking through Judge Critz, said: “It is the rule that,' unless the error is fundamental, it must be assigned in a motion for a new trial in the district court. This means that the ruling, act, or conduct complained of must be pointed out or stated in the motion for a new trial in such a manner as to apprize the trial court of the error complained of.”

' The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
# C_2022315EN.01000101.xml

| 19.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.10663 – ORANGE / VOO / BRUTELE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 315/01)

On 28 July 2022, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.10663 – ORANGE/VOO/BRUTELE, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                           1,219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,719
<PP&E>                                          20,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,043
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,717
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               418,464
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                80,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,692
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18


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

No. 18723.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1936.

Thomas A. Wheat, of Liberty, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Robbery, with firearms is the offense; penalty assessed, at confinement in the penitentiary for fifteen years.

Since the filing of the appeal, there has been presented to this court the affidavit of the sheriff of Liberty county to the effect that on August 1, 1936, the appellant escaped from the jail of said county and is still at large. Under the provisions of article S24, C.C.P., as amended by Acts 1933, c. 34 (Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 824), and article 825, the escape of the appellant deprives this court of jurisdiction of the appeal. It is therefore dismissed. ' * *
# C_2022464EN.01000501.xml

| 6.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 464/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 464/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10900 – PLATINUM EQUITY GROUP / IMERYS HTSM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 464/05)

On 24 November 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10900. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10900. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-16-00173-CV

EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., D/B/A 

FUSITE, AND EMERSON CLIMATE 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellants

V.

CLARENCE JOHNSON AND UNITED 

STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

of Tarrant County (048-268665-13)

October 18, 2018

Opinion by Justice Pittman

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellants Emerson Electric Co., d/b/a Fusite, and 

Emerson Climate Technologies, Inc. shall jointly and severally pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mark T. Pittman_________________

 Justice Mark T. Pittman
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 the quarterly report of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, H. Michael Krimbill, President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 9, 2007



/s/ Brian J. JenningsBrian J. JenningsChief Financial Officer


*A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to
and will be retained by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.