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

                                                               EXHIBIT 10.26 (h)
 
                            SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                           PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.
                              BOARD OF DIRECTORS'
                          DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

     This Second Amendment is made on this __ day of June, 1997, to be effective
as of July 1, 1997.

     WHEREAS, Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") sponsors the Playboy 
Enterprises, Inc. Board of Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan"), 
as established effective October 1, 1992 and amended once thereafter; and

     WHEREAS, pursuant to its reserved power under Section 6.01 of the Plan, the
Company wishes to amend the Plan primarily to change the Plan Year to a calendar
year, effective January 1, 1998, by creating a short Plan Year from July 1 -
December 31, 1997;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects:

     1.   The following sentence is added to the definition of "Determination
          Date" in Section 2.10:

               "Effective with the change to a calendar Plan Year beginning
               January 1, 1998, the last day of each calendar quarter shall be a
               Determination Date instead of the last day of each fiscal
               quarter."

     2.   The following sentence is added to the definition of "Plan Year" in 
          Section 2.16:

               "Effective for periods beginning on or after January 1, 1998,
               `Plan Year' shall mean the calendar year, so the Plan Year
               beginning July 1, 1997 shall be a short year running for six
               months and ending on December 31, 1997."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment, having been first duly adopted, 
is executed below by an authorized officer of the Company, to take effect as 
provided above.

                                        PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC.


                                        By:
                                            ---------------------------------

                                        Title: ------------------------------
#### OUTLAW v. LOS OLMOS OIL & GAS CO. et al.

No. 9054.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 26, 1933.

Rehearing Denied June 21, 1933.

Carl & Leslie, of Edinburg, and H. L. Yates, of Brownsville, for appellants.

Lee O. Cox, of Harlingen, and Hiner & Pan-nill, of Fort Worth, for appellees.

FLY, Chief Justice.

This suit was filed by G. B. Outlaw and R. S. Tatum against the Los Olmos Oil & Gas Company and J. W. Richards, its president, and sought to recover of them certain shares of stock in the corporation alleged to be their property, and also a commission of $1,000 alleged to be due G. B. Outlaw for the sale of certain stock..

The court instructed a verdict for appellees.

The petition goes into great detail in pleading what appellants thought to be the facts in the case, many of such facts being immaterial and not at all illuminating. For instance, it was pleaded that appellants and Richards desired to obtain a charter for a corporation to be called the Virginia Oil & Gas Company, but could not obtain it because a charter had already been obtained for a corporation of the same name, and consequently they named the new corporation Los Olmos Oil *&*Gas. Company, and it was so chartered. Much of the petition is consumed in the allegations of immaterial matters.

The testimony showed that appellants had sold all their shares in the corporation to J. W. Richards. The written transfer of all interests in the corporation was in terms so plain that any one could understand it, and is as follows:

> “That we, G. B. Outlaw and R. S. Tatum, acting by and through his attorney as aforesaid, parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of $125.00 and other good and valuable consideration, to us in hand paid by J. W. Richards, party of the second part, the receipt of all which is hereby acknowledged, hereby bargain, sell, transfer, assign and convey all our. right, title and interest of whatsoever kind, owned by us or to which we may be. entitled, in and to the Los Olmos Oil & Gas Company, unto the said J. W. Richards, his heirs, assigns and legal representatives;

> “And for the same consideration, we the said G. B. Outlaw and R. S. Tatum, acting *532by and through his attorney as aforesaid, parties of the first part, hereby agree and' bind ourselves to endorse or cause to be endorsed and have transferred and assigned upon the books of the Los Olmos Oil *&*Gas Company, all stock and certificates of stock which we own. or to which .we may be entitled, or that may be issued to us or either of us in said company, as soon as said stock certificates shall have been, and/or may be issued to us.”

■ In addition, it was clearly shown that Outlaw had no authority to sell shares in the corporation and in fact the corporation had no shares that it could sell.

The demands of appellants had no foundation in law or fact, and the court properly instructed a verdict against them.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Spectra Energy Partners, LP on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Gregory J. Rizzo, President and Chief Executive Officer of Spectra Energy Partners GP, LLC, general partner of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP, general partner of Spectra Energy Partners, LP, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Spectra Energy Partners, LP.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2010 |  |  |  | /S/    GREGORY J.
RIZZO                                                                                                                                                                     
|                       |  |  |  | Gregory J. Rizzo President and Chief Executive Officer Spectra Energy Partners GP,
LLC General Partner of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LP
General Partner of Spectra Energy Partners, LP
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned is the CEO and Presidentof Petrocorp Inc.  This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  This Certification accompanies the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Petrocorp Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

 

The undersigned certifies that such 10-QReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-QReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Petrocorp Inc. as of September 30, 2010.

 

This Certification is executed as ofNovember 15, 2010.

* *

/s/ James Fitzsimons    

      James Fitzsimons 

      CEO and President
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 I 0 1 97

. J ENNI FER D I ANNE HUNTER et al

. v

. P ROGRESSI VE

MOUNTAI N I NSURANCE COMPANY.

J en n i fer Di an n e Hu nt er an d Lewi s Lad o n H u n t er w ere in v o l v ed i n a car

acci den t wi t h an un i n s u red d ri v er. At t h e t i m e o f t h e acci d e n t

, t he Hu n t ers were

i n s u red b y Pro g res s i v e M ou n t ai n In s u ran ce Co m p an y

. Th e Hu n t ers an d Pro g res s i v e

fi led cro s s -m o t io ns fo r s u m m ary j u d g m en t o n t h e is s u e o f un i n s u red m o t o ri s t

co v erag e. Th e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed i n p art an d den i ed i n p art b ot h m o t io n s

. Th e

Hu n t ers seek an i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n

.

Pu rs uan t t o OCGA § 9 -1 1 -5 6 (h ), “ [a] n o rd er g ran t i n g su m m ary ju dg m en t o n

an y i s s u e o r as t o an y p art y s hal l b e s ub ject to rev i ew b y ap p eal .” Here, t he Hu n t ers

s eek t o ch al l en g e th at po rt i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er g ran t i n g i n p art Pro g res s i v e’ s

m o ti o n fo r s u m

m ary j u d gm en t

. “ Th i s Co u rt wi l l g ran t a t i m el y ap p l i cat i o n fo r

i n t erl o cu t o r y rev i ew i f t h e ord er co m p l ai n ed o f i s su b

ject t o di rect ap p eal an d t h e

ap p li can t s h av e n o t o t herwi s e fi l ed a no t i ce o f ap p eal

. ” S p i vey v. Hemb r ee

, 2 6 8 Ga.

Ap p . 4 8 5 , 4 8 6 n . 1 (6 0 2 SE2 d 2 4 6 ) (2 0 0 4 ).

Acco rd i ng l y

, t h i s i n t erloc utory ap p l i cat i o n is h ereb y GRANTED. T h e Hu n t ers

s h al l h av e t en d ay s fro m th e d at e o f t h i s o rd er t o fi l e a n o t ice o f ap peal i n t h e t ri al

co u r t

. I f t he Hu n t ers h av e al read y fi l ed a n o t i ce o f ap p eal fro m t h e o rd er at i s s u e

h ere, t h ey n eed n o t fi l e a s eco n d n ot i ce. Th e cl erk o f t h e t ri al co u rt is DIRECTED to March 28, 2019i n cl u d e a co p y o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t t ed t o t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/28/2019
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 SURFACE COATINGS, INC. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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 operation of the Company.








Dated:  August
11, 2009





/s/ Rick
Pietrykowski





Name:
Rick Pietrykowski


Title:  Chief
Executive Officer











Dated:  August
11, 2009





/s/ Rick
Pietrykowski





Name:
Rick Pietrykowski


Title:  Chief
Financial Officer
#### AUSTIN v. STATE.

No. 20733.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 6, 1940.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1940.

*1081Owen & Bohannan, of Brownwood, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a fine of $200 imposed by the County Court of Brown County on a charge of violating the Local Option Law. Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666—1 et seq.

The charge is the same as that in the case of Arthur Shelton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 138 S.W.2d 1078, from Brown County, this day decided by the court. The questions of law raised are identical, and the opinion in that case is referred to and adopted herein so far as the questions of law are concerned.

J. M. Rich testified that on the first day of April, 1939, he went into the Crystal Cafe in Brownwood with a companion and ordered some sandwiches. He then asked appellant if they could get something to drink. ' He consented and took them to the back part of the cafe to a party named Shelby Walker and told him to let them have what they wanted. They asked him for a drink of whisky. He poured it out and sold it to them for which the witness paid fifteen cents. The witness then wanted to buy a half pint. Walker consulted the appellant in the hearing of the witness and it was agreed between them that they would sell the witness one-half pint, which they did for the consideration of seventy-five cents.

Appellant introduced no witnesses and made no denial of these facts. The evidence supports the verdict.

The case is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant complains in his motion because the court did not give in charge to the jury the law of circumstantial evidence. The evidence is short, and is epitomized in the original opinion herein. From such evidence we gather that the sale of this whisky was made by appellant operating through his agent, Shelby Walker. It will be noted that the State did not rely upon circumstantial evidence in order to establish its case, but instead had direct testimony that appellant directed his agent or employee, Shelby Walker, to make the sales to the State’s witness. That these proven circumstances or transactions were relied upon to show the operation of an open saloon, does not, so we think, render the case one based upon circumstantial evidence. We see no error in failing to give such a charge.

The same point is herein raised in this motion relative to the sale of two drinks not constituting a violation of the law as was raised in the Arthur Shelton case, Shelton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 138 S.W.2d 1078, not yet reported [in State Reports], and we refer to our holding therein in disposing of such contention.

The motion is overruled.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.5





	
		
	MetLife, Inc.
_____________________________
Compensation Committee
Board of Directors
	






June 13, 2017


Resolved:


		
	(1)
	That the Board approves Michel Khalaf’s eligibility to participate in the MetLife Deferred Compensation Plan for Globally Mobile Employees (the “Plan”) upon his appointment as President, U.S. and EMEA of MetLife, Inc. (the “Company”), subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan, as reflected in the materials presented to the Board and filed with the records of the meeting, and;      




		
	(2)
	That the officers of the Company (the “Officers”) are authorized in the name and on behalf of the Company, to (a) take or cause to be taken any and all such further actions and to prepare, execute and deliver or cause to be prepared, executed and delivered, and where necessary or appropriate, file or cause to be filed with the appropriate governmental authorities, any and all instruments and documents, including all certificates, contracts, bonds, agreements, documents, instruments, receipts or other papers, (b) incur and pay or cause to be paid all fees and expenses and (c) engage such persons, in each case as such Officer shall in that Officer’s judgment determine to be necessary or appropriate to carry out fully the intent and purposes of the foregoing resolutions and each of the transactions contemplated thereby.




1









	
		
	Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
_____________________________
Compensation Committee
Board of Directors
	






June 13, 2017


Resolved:


		
	(1)
	That the Board approves Michel Khalaf’s eligibility to participate in the MetLife Deferred Compensation Plan for Globally Mobile Employees (the “Plan”) upon his appointment as President, U.S. and EMEA of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (the “Company”), subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan, as reflected in the materials presented to the Board and filed with the records of the meeting, and;      




		
	(2)
	That the officers of the Company (the “Officers”) are authorized in the name and on behalf of the Company, to (a) take or cause to be taken any and all such further actions and to prepare, execute and deliver or cause to be prepared, executed and delivered, and where necessary or appropriate, file or cause to be filed with the appropriate governmental authorities, any and all instruments and documents, including all certificates, contracts, bonds, agreements, documents, instruments, receipts or other papers, (b) incur and pay or cause to be paid all fees and expenses and (c) engage such persons, in each case as such Officer shall in that Officer’s judgment determine to be necessary or appropriate to carry out fully the intent and purposes of the foregoing resolutions and each of the transactions contemplated thereby.








2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AKEEM ALIN-NAFIS ABDULLAH-MALIK, a/k/a Akeem

Abdul Malik,

Plaintiff - Appellant.

No. 04-7315

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AKEEM ALIN-NAFIS ABDULLAH-MALIK, a/k/a Akeem

Abdul Malik,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 04-7316

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus
- 2 -

AKEEM ALIN-NAFIS ABDULLAH-MALIK, a/k/a Akeem

Abdul Malik,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-01-398; CA-03-672-1)

Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Akeem Alin-Nafis Abdullah-Malik, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence

Patrick Auld, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*This court lacks jurisdiction to directly review a magistrate

judge’s order absent consent. Accordingly, No. 04-7316, in which

Abdullah-Malik seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying

his motion to amend, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Akeem Alin-Nafis AbdullahMalik seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment adopting the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and the magistrate judge’s order

denying the post-judgment motion to amend the § 2255 motion.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude Abdullah-Malik has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, as to all the appeals, we deny certificates

of appealability and dismiss the appeals.* We dispense with oral
- 4 -

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 22

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


             NAME                   JURISDICTION OF   PERCENTAGE
                                     INCORPORATION       OWNED

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

Westbrae Natural Foods, Inc.            California       100%

Little Bear Organic Foods, Inc.         California       100%

Pastry Shell, Inc.*                     California       100%

Millcrest Products Corp.*               California       100%

Magar Properties, Inc.*                 California       100%

Monterey Agricultural Products, Inc.*   California       100%

Process Plants Corp.*                   California       100%

Vestro Acquisition Corp.*               Delaware         100%



                                       38
Blueprint





 






Exhibit
4.1.1


 



English Summary of the Amendment to the Consulting Agreement by and
among Cresud and Consultores Assets Management S.A.


 


On
September 8, 2017, Cresud and Consultores Assets Management S.A.
(“Consultores”) entered into an amendment of the
Consulting Services Agreement by which the parties agreed (i)
considering the significant expansion and diversification of the
activities developed by Cresud, that Consultores will advise Cresud
on any type of business and/or investment which Cresud may request
and implement, with any opinions given by Consultores qualifying as
non-binding on Cresud and (ii) to contemplate the possibility of
implementing partial assignments, subject to Cresud’s consent
pursuant to the applicable laws, of the services rendered and
rights conferred under the agreement to the various third parties
who have assisted or may assist Consultores in the
future.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00428-CR

Jessica Yvette GARANZUAY,

Appellant

v.

The 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 420081

Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 9, 2015

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We grant 

the motion and dismiss this appeal. See id.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 13

- 00294

- CR

AUGUSTINE CANTU JIME NEZ

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- 29

- C1

ORDER

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal.

We abate this appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary hearings within

30 days of the date of this Order pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

38.8(b)(2) and (3). T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by the rule, if any, are

ordered to be filed wit hin 45 days of the date of this Order. See id

.Jimenez v. State Page 2 PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed March 27, 2014