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



EXHIBIT 10.3



SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
The Resolute Forest Products Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) as established by Resolute Forest Products Inc. (the “Company”), is hereby amended as follows, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on October 31, 2017 and the authority retained in Section 9 of the Plan.
1.    The heading of Section 7.2 of the Plan shall be amended to read as “Minimum Vesting.”
2.    Section 7.2 of the Plan shall be amended by adding the following at the end thereof to read as follows:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective for Awards granted on and after October 30, 2017, if the right to become vested in a Full Value Award of restricted stock units is conditioned on the completion of a specified period of service with the Company or the Subsidiaries, without achievement of Performance Measures or other performance objectives (whether or not related to Performance Measures) being required as a condition of vesting, and without it being granted in lieu of other compensation, then the required period of service for full vesting shall be not less than three years, or ratably (whether monthly, quarterly, annual or otherwise) over not less than a three-year period.”
3.    This amendment is effective on the date on which it was approved by the Board of Directors, and shall apply to all Awards made on or after such date.  Except as otherwise provided herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer this 1st day of November, 2017.
RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS INC. 
 
 
By: __________________________________ 
    Richard Garneau 
    President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries of Paradyne Netoworks, Inc.


                                               Domestic or Foreign &
  Name                                         Country of Incorporation
--------------------------------------         ---------------------------------
Paradyne Networks, Inc.                        Domestic - Delaware
Paradyne Corporation                           Domestic - Delaware
Paradyne Canada, LTD                           Foreign - Canada
Paradyne International LTD                     Foreign - UK
Paradyne International Sales Ltd.              Foreign - Barbados
Paradyne Worldwide Corp.                       Domestic - Delaware
Ark Electronic Products, Inc.                  Domestic - Florida
Communications Equipment Corporation           Domestic - Delaware
Paradyne Finance Corp.                         Domestic - Delaware
Paradyne Services, LLC                         Domestic Limited Liability
                                               Company - Delaware
Elastic Networks Inc.                          Domestic - Delaware
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3259 

To grant authority to the President to detain non-diplomatic officials of 

the Government of Iran in the United States and non-diplomatic officials 

of the Government of Iran in certain other countries until all United 

States citizens held by the Government of Iran are released and returned 

to the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2015 

Mr. ROHRABACHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To grant authority to the President to detain non-diplomatic 

officials of the Government of Iran in the United States 

and non-diplomatic officials of the Government of Iran 

in certain other countries until all United States citizens 

held by the Government of Iran are released and returned to the United States, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING. 

4 Congress finds that the Government of Iran is un5 justly holding at least three United States citizens, Jason 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3259 IH

1 Rezaian, Saeed Abedini, and Amir Hekmati, and possibly 

2 Robert Levinson, as hostages. 

3 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO DETAIN NON-DIPLOMATIC OFFI4 CIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, the President is authorized to take such ac7 tions as may be necessary to detain— 

8 (1) non-diplomatic officials of the Government 

9 of Iran in the United States; and 

10 (2) non-diplomatic officials of the Government 

11 of Iran in any other country if the government of 

12 such country provides authority in advance to the 

13 United States to take such actions to detain such of14 ficials in such country. 

15 (b) SUNSET.—The authority of subsection (a) shall 

16 expire on the date on which the United States citizens de17 scribed in section 1 have been released and returned to 

18 the United States or the date on which the Government 

19 of Iran provides to the United States Government a full 

20 accounting of the whereabouts of Robert Levinson, which21 ever occurs later. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1.2

CERTIFICATION

I, James E. Schuster, principal executive officer of Hawker Beechcraft Notes Company (the
Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 28, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James E. Schuster                                                   
|James E. Schuster, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|                                                                        

November 4, 2008
Exhibit 23.4**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No.333-142278 of DCP Midstream Partners, LP and DCP Midstream Partners Finance Corp. on Form S-3 ofour report dated June 29, 2007 (October 16, 2007 as to the effects of the restatement), (whichreport expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to thepreparation of the combined financial statements of the East Texas Midstream Business from theseparate records maintained by DCP Midstream, LLC), relating to the combined financial statementsof the East Texas Midstream Business as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and for the three years inthe period ended December 31, 2006 appearing in the Current Report of DCP Midstream Partners, LP onForm 8-K/A dated October 16, 2007, and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in theProspectus of DCP Midstream Partners, LP and DCP Midstream Partners Finance Corp., which is part ofthis Registration Statement./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPDenver, Colorado
| **Exhibit 35.1** |
|------------------|

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT  BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE  DRYROCK ISSUANCE TRUST**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dryrock Issuance Trust for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Barclays Bank Delaware (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:

1. A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2012, by and among Dryrock Funding LLC, the Servicer, Dryrock Issuance Trust and U.S. Bank National Association (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 27th of March 2013.

|        | **BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE**                                                                                                          |        |  |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--|
|   |                                                                                                                                |   |
|        |                                                                                                                                     |        |
|   | By: /s/ Gerald Pavelich                   |   |
|        | Name: Gerald Pavelich                                                                                                               |        |
|        | Title: Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                      |        |
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TE XAS

N O S
. P D

- 0 4 4 4

- 1 4 , 0 4 4 5

- 1 4

A N T H O N Y A L A M I A , A p p e l l a n t

v .
T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E F I F T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

C O L L I N C O U N T Y

Y E A R Y , J
. , f

i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n .

O P I N I O N

I d i s s e n t f

o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n m y d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n S m i t h v

. S t a t e , 4 6 3 S

. W

. 3 d

8 9 0 ( T e x
. C r i m

. A p p

. 2 0 1 5 )

.

F I L E D : D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 D O N O T P U B L I S H
Civil Service 

Retirement 

System 

Federal Employees’ 

Group Life 

Insurance Program 

Federal Employees 

Health Benefits 

Program 

Federal Employees 

Retirement 

System 

Long Term 

Care Insurance 

Program 

United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance Service 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 01-322 Date: August 22, 2001 

Subject: THE JULY ISSUE OF MODERNIZING TODAY

The July 2001 issue of Modernizing Today provides information on, “Accepting and 

Communicating Change.” There are several interesting articles including - 

The Modernization Boardwalk --Where We Were and Where We are Going at 

http://www.opm.gov/retire/modern/boardwalk.pdf 

The continued successful implementation of the Benefits Calculator 

A Modernization interview, and 

other featured items 

You can find this issue at : http://www.opm.gov/retire/modern/v3issue2.pdf and more 

about the Modernization effort on our web site at www.opm.gov/retire/modern . 

If you should have any questions concerning this or any other Benefits Administration Letters, 

please call us at (202) 606-0606, or send an email to finance@opm.gov. 

 

 Robert A. Yuran, Chief 

 Financial Policy Staff
#### EASTERN TEXAS ELECTRIC CO. v. PETRASEK.

No. 2424.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

June 29, 1933.

*627Ewell Strong and O'rgain, Carroll & Bell, all of Beaumont, for appellant.

E. B. Lamson, of Port Arthur, for appel-lee.

COMBS, Justice.

Appellee, John Petrasek, originally filed this suit in the justice court of Jefferson county, Tex., precinct No. 2, for damages in the amount of $136.90 for personal injuries and for damage to his automobile alleged to have been sustained on July 24,1931, when his automobile collided with an interurban car owned and operated by the appellant at the intersection of the interurban track and Sixteenth street in the city of Port Arthur. Prom a judgment against it in the justice court appellant appealed to the county court of Jefferson county at law, where a trial was had to a jury and resulted in a verdict on special issues upon which the court entered judgment in favor of appeilee for $119.90.

Appellant complains of the manner in which the court submitted the issue of unavoidable accident. That issue, as submitted by the court, was as follows:

> “Special Issue No. 7. Do you find from ai preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as you may find the. fact to be.” The issue, as framed, improperly casts the burden of proof upon the defendant. When raised by the evidence, the burden is upon the plaintiff to negative the issue of unavoidable accident. Rosenthal Dry Goods Co. v. Hillebrandt (Tex. Com. App.) 7 S.W.(2d) 521; Texas Electric Ry. v. Scott (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S. W.(2d) 24; Id. (Tex. Com. App.) 32 S.W.(2d) 641, 643; El Paso Electric Co. v. Portillo (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S.W.(2d). 219. We think the evidence in this case clearly raised the issue. Moreover, it was submitted without objection and appellee is in no position to Icontend that the evidence did not raise it. Rosenthal Dry Goods Co. v. Hillebrandt, supra. The manner of the submission of this issue makes necessary a reversal of the case.

In view of another trial, we will notice briefly another of appellant’s assignments of error. In submitting the various issues of negligence, the court correctly framed them so as to cast the burden of proof upon the party having the burden of the particular issue. But in connection with his definition of “preponderance” he instructed the jury, “You are to answer the questions propounded to you in this charge by the preponderance of the evidence.” Such a general charge was recently held erroneous by the Waco Court of Civil Appeals, in Psimenos v. Huntley, 47 S. W.(2d) 622. See, also, Eagle Star & British Dominions Ins. Co. v. Head, 47 S.W.(2d) 625, by the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals. While we do not mean to here decide the question of whether the correct framing of the issues had the effect of rendering harmless the error of the general instruction, we suggest that upon another trial the objectionable portion of the charge be eliminated.

For the error discussed the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for applicable date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Lisa M. Palluconi, Acting Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *https://www.treasury.gov/​ofac*).                

## Notice of OFAC Actions

On September 26, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
      ( print page 81141)    

Dated: October 1, 2024.

Lisa M. Palluconi,

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[FR Doc. 2024-23082 Filed 10-4-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
#### NATHAN v. BRASHEAR.

No. 10392.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

April 15, 1937.

Rehearing Denied May 6, 1937.

E. R. Campbell, of Houston, for appellant.

Ewing Werlein, of Houston, for ap-pellee.

CODY, Justice.

This is a suit by defendant in error, plaintiff in the court below, to recover a portion of the rent alleged to be due him, as one of his testator’s legatees, from plaintiff in error. The original petition, properly construed, asserted the right to recover a sum well within the jurisdiction of the district court. Several months after plaintiff in error had filed his answer, consisting of a general demurrer and a general denial, defendant in error, with leave of the court, filed his first amended original petition, asserting a right to a larger share of the rent than had been claimed in his original petition. No new citation was served on plaintiff in error. Relying on an erroneous construction of the original petition, plaintiff in error considered that the original petition set up a cause of action for' a sum less than the court’s jurisdictional amount, and suffered a judgment to be taken against him without appearing in court when the case was tried.

As the original petition stated a cause of action within the jurisdictional amount of the court, the argument that it was necessary to cite plaintiff in error in the amended pleading in order for the .court to render a valid judgment against him thereon, falls. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISTOBAL ARGUETA-BARTOLON, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71948 

Agency No. A202-065-685 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges 

Cristobal Argueta-Bartolon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) 

that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus 

is not eligible for relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny 

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that petitioner is not 

eligible for withholding of removal because he failed to establish membership in a 

cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must 

‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common 

immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct 

within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 

237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that 

Argueta-Bartolon otherwise failed to establish he would be persecuted because of a 

protected ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or 

random violence . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Argueta-Bartolon 

is not eligible for CAT protection because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable 

possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of 

Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836–37.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### The Honorable Daniel M. Friedman, United States Circuit Judge 1 

### for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, Senior Judge, United State s 2 

### District Court for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-1099

___________ Howard R. Fletcher; Georgene * Fletcher, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * Randy J. Zellmer; the Law Firm * [UNPUBLISHED] of Johnson, Anderson & Zellmer, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 18, 1996 Filed: January 8, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, FRIEDMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. 1

___________ PER CURIAM.

Ho ward and Georgene Fletcher appeal the district court's entry o f 2 judg ment for defendants Randy J. Zellmer and the Johnson, Anderson & Zellm er law firm in this legal malpractice action. The district cour t concluded that the appropriate state statute of limitations barred certain of appellants' causes of action, and that appellants had failed to create issues of material fact on the remaining causes of action. After carefull y reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the distric t court's conclusions were correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.