alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Cash Balance Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 

SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 

CASH BALANCE 

EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 

PLAN AMENDMENT 

The San Jose Water Company Cash Balance Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan, as amended and restated July 29, 2009 (the
“Plan”), is hereby further amended, effective January 1, 2011, as set forth below. All capitalized terms not otherwise expressly defined in this Plan Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan.

 1. The participation in the Plan by James P. Lynch (the “Executive”) shall be subject to the
following modifications of the terms and provisions otherwise in effect for all other Participants in the Plan and shall, accordingly, apply to and govern his Compensation Credits under the Plan and the vesting of his Accrued Benefit thereunder:

 (a) The For each Plan Quarter that the Executive remains an Eligible Employee participating in the Plan, Compensation
Credits shall be made to such Executive’s Account in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.2(a) of the Plan but based on the following chart in lieu of the chart that otherwise appears in such
Section 3.2(a): 
  

			
	 Years of Credited Service
	  	Percent of Compensation
	 Less than 20
	  	15%
	 20 or more
	  	16%

 (b) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in Section 4.1 of the Plan, the Executive shall vest in his Accrued Benefit under the Plan upon his completion of Years of Service as follows: 

 

			
	 Years of Service Completed
	  	Vested
Percentage
	 Less than 3
	  	None
	 3 or More
	  	100%

 2. Except as
expressly modified by this Plan Amendment, all the terms and provisions of the Plan shall apply to the Executive and shall govern his participation in the Plan and his accrual of a Retirement Benefit thereunder. 

3. This Plan Amendment shall not apply to any Participant in the Plan other than the Executive and shall have no effect or impact on any
such other Participant’s benefit entitlement or benefit accrual under the Plan. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, San Jose Water Company has caused its authorized officer to
execute this Plan Amendment in its name and on its behalf on the date indicated below. 
  

			
		 	SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ W. Richard Roth

		 	W. Richard Roth, President and
		 	Chief Executive Officer
		
	Dated:	 	September 29, 2010
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23(A)

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-00395, File No. 333-43245 and File No.
333-86056) and Forms S-8 (File No. 33-27869, File No. 33-46641, File No.
33-48504, File No. 33-48505, File No. 33-26111, File No. 33-45107 and File No.
333-84170) of Energen Corporation of our report dated March 2, 2004 relating to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Energen Corporation, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Birmingham, Alabama
March 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF GARC II AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-08-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,357
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,506
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,434
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,358<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,076
<INCOME-TAX>                                       768
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,308
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,308
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE GARC II HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.

<F2>THIS VALUE REPRESENTS OPERATING EXPENSES ON THE STATEMENTS OF INCOME.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 9, 2022

No. 04-21-00284-CV

Ronald Dean STRICKLAND,

Appellant

v.

IHEARTMEDIA, Inc. and Stephen L. Schaefer,

Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CVDO-21-0000063

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s “Order Sustaining 

Defendants’ iHeartMedia, Inc. and Stephen L. Schaefer’s Contest of Plaintiff’s Sworn Statement 

of Inability to Pay Costs of Appeal or Post Appeal Bond and Denying Plaintiff’s Sworn Statement 

of Inability to Pay Costs of Appeal or Post Appeal Bond,” signed on September 17, 2021, is 

REVERSED.

We ORDER that appellant Ronald Dean Strickland may proceed with this appeal without 

payment of filing fees or costs for the record.

We ORDER the court reporter to file within 30 days of the date of this order the reporter’s 

record from the hearing held on July 13, 2021.

We ORDER that appellant’s brief is due 30 days after the reporter’s record is filed.

It is so ORDERED on March 9, 2022.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
04-21-00284-CV

- 2 -

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of March, 2022.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 13.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of Forum National Investments Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



(1) 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.



|Dated: August 15, 2003 |  | By |  | /s/ Martin Tutschek                                  
|---------------------- |  | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |    |  | Martin Tutschek, Chief Financial Officer and Director
23 February 2015

Mr.' Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals P. 

## o. Box 12308,**~apitol** St. Austin,**T~x~s** 78711
Re: Cause Bo.• 7S2079'.:.A(Count 2) BxParte Reyes 

## Deay Wr1t 

## etter Dear Mr. Acosta, Appeal**~~erk:** 

# 8'·L_

.Cf1CJ

# -()I

. I ()

Jose J. Reyes TDC No. 821821 McConnell Unit 3001 

## s. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102


## RECEIVEDIN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

# FEB26

# 2015

On January 5, 2015, the State'•s Proposed Findings offact, conclusions oflaw and order was filed with the 

### court. In that same Motion, the State claimed the motion was sent 

### to the Court ofCriminal Appeal; Here it is February 23, 2015, and I haven'•t received a "White Card" from the Court of Criminal Appeal informing me**th~t** the writ was nowpending in that 

### court. I understand.to gain**~ome** time the 

### court entered order extending the**statuto~y** time limits a practice condemned in .McCree v. Hampton, 824 

## s.w. 2d. 578 (Tex. Cr; App. 1992). However, that case 

### sat out a method whereby the trial court can either on motion of the State 

### or its own initiative, gain more**~ime** 

### to investigate the allegations raised within a writ application. Ifthe trial 

### court selects this option but fails 

### to notify the Court of**Crimin~l** Appeals**~nd** enquiry is made 

### to the Court without mention of the previously entered order designating issue a "delayed writ letter" may well be sent to the trial 

### court with copies 

### to the District clerk and district attorney enquiring into the alleged delay. I hereby request that you conduct a investigation into these matters and order the files 

### to those findings**~nd** transmit them along with the writ transcript to the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals as required,by law. -1-McConnell Unit 3001 

## s. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102
files
cc.: Mr.· Chris Daniel District Clerk Harris County District Clerk 1201 Franklin P. 

## o. Box 4651 Houston, Texas 77210-4651

-2-
DATOS

RÁPIDOS

Trabajo seguro alrededor 

de los equipos de 

manipulación de carga en 

las terminales marítimas

Usar equipos de manipulación de carga y trabajar 

alrededor de dichos equipos, tales como carretillas 

elevadoras, semirremolques, camionetas, grúas y 

otros equipos móviles en las terminales marinas, 

puede exponer a los trabajadores a lesiones o a la 

muerte. Es responsabilidad del empleador garantizar la 

seguridad de los trabajadores. Para prevenir posibles 

lesiones o la muerte, los empleadores deben tener 

charlas frecuentes sobre temas de seguridad.

Los empleadores deben asegurarse de que los 

operadores conocen:

• El paso de peatones y tráfico peatonal

• Al personal de señalización, trabajadores debajo de 

ganchos, obreros y otros empleados que trabajan 

cerca de los equipos

• El tráfico de vehículos en el patio

• Las normas de tráfico y velocidad

• Los cruces de ferrocarril

• Las esquinas ciegas

• El chasis que se extiende más allá de las áreas 

designadas de estacionamiento

• Los carriles para grúas portacontenedores 

(Transtainers), grúas y tráfico

• Las cargas que se transportan en alto (contenedores, 

tapas de escotillas, etc.)

• El movimiento de la grúa durante las operaciones 

de elevación

Departamento de Trabajo 

de los EE. UU.

Para más información:

Administración de

Seguridad y Salud 

Ocupacional

OSHA 3864-05 2016 — Safely Operating and Working Around Cargo Handling Equipment in Marine Terminals — Spanish
DATOS

RÁPIDOS

Los empleadores deben asegurarse de que el 

personal de señalización, inspectores, obreros y 

demás personal que trabaja sobre el terreno esté al 

tanto de lo siguiente:

• Todos los equipos operados en su área de trabajo

• Tráfico exterior de camiones

• Contenedores que pasan sobre su cabeza

Recuerde:

• Todos los trabajadores deben mantener contacto 

visual con los operadores de equipo mientras 

trabajando cerca de equipos de manipulación 

de carga.

• Los capataces y supervisores deben mantener 

contacto por radio con los operadores de equipos.

• Mantenerse centrado en la seguridad.

Imagen: OSHA

Departamento de Trabajo 

de los EE. UU.

Para más información:

Administración de

Seguridad y Salud 

Ocupacional
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 88 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 88

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to exempt disabled 
 individuals from being required to enroll with a managed care entity 
                      under the medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

  Mr. Bunning introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to exempt disabled 
 individuals from being required to enroll with a managed care entity 
                      under the medicaid program.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF DISABLED INDIVIDUALS FROM REQUIRED ENROLLMENT 
              WITH A MANAGED CARE ENTITY UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

    (a) Amendment to the Social Security Act.--Section 1932(a)(2) of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2(a)(2)) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
                    ``(D) Exemption of disabled individuals.--A State 
                may not require under paragraph (1) the enrollment in a 
                managed care entity of an individual who is disabled 
                (as determined under section 1614(a)(3)).''.
    (b) Retroactivity.--The amendment made by subsection (a) takes 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 251).
                                 <all>
```
#### JOSEPH DEY et. ux. *v.*JAMES WILLIAMS et. al.

A legacy is not,taken as a satisfaction of a debt due the legatee, there being assets to pay both the debt and legacy, if there is a difference in their natures, or in the time when they are payable, or when one is certain and the o ther contingent.

John Williams the testator of the defendants, was the guardian of his grandchild the feme plaintiff He neglected to secure a debt due her by another of his grandchildren who had died, and the object of the bill was to charge his estate with its amount. The defendants in their answer *67admitted the case made by the bill, but set up as a defence ¿he fact that their testator (the guardian) had by his will given to the ward, after the death of his wife ¿a negro and a bed and furniture, and also one fifth of the clear residue of his estate, which he declared to be in satisfaction of the debt due her, and the defendants relied upon these facts as a bar to the plaintiffs. Subject to this defence a referencerhad been made in the court below, and the sum of $200foJ-0- wras reported to be due the plaintiffs. No exception was filed to this report.

whether testator to atsjMto befn tkm ofa finare ble. *(Ha'l*

*Kinney,*for the plaintiffs.

*Heath,*contra.

Gaston, Judge. —

The court cannot decree that the legacies bequeathed to the' plaintiff Elizabeth were given in satisfaction of the debt due to her by the testator. The first bequest to her is of a negro girl, abed and furniture,but not to take effect in possession until after the death of the testator’s wife. The other is of a share of tire 'proceeds of certain negroes directed to be sold, and of the general residuary estate, expressly subject to the payment of the testator’s debts, and to a life estate of his widow. A legacy is not presumed to have been intended in satisfaction of a debt due by the testator to a creditor legatee, where there is no deficiency of assets to pay both debts and legacies, if there be a difference in the nature of the debt and legacy, or a difference in the times when they are respectively payable, or wherethe one is certain arid absolute, and the other contingent and uncertain. The answer indeed avers, and offers to prove by testimony *Jehors*the will, that the legacies were given in discharge, and because of the debt. We are not prepared to say that testimony for that purpose can be received, but we are not under the necessity of deciding the question, as no such testimony is to be found-jin the proofs,

Upon the pleadings and proofs there is no other matter presented for our determination. An account has been had by consent of the parties, andjno exception has been taken thereto. The report therefore isj to be confirmed, and the plaintiffs to have a decree for the amount thoreof.

Per Curiam. Decree accordingly.
# ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OFMONTANA

AF 06-0263
IN THEMATTER OF APPOINTINGMEMBERSTO THE COMMISSION ON COURTSOF LIMITED JURISDICTION ORDER 

# FILED FEB 20 2024 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana

Honorable Perry Miller has retired his position as the small community cityjudge member on the Commission on Courts ofLimited Jurisdiction. The Court thanks Judge Miller for his dedicated service to the Commission, the Court, and the people ofMontana. The Commission has recommended that Honorable Maureen O'Connor, Stevensville City Court Judge,be appointed. With the consent ofthe appointee, IT IS ORDERED that Honorable Maureen O'Connor, Stevensville City Court Judge, is appointed as the small community city judge member of the Commission on Courts of Limited Jurisdiction commencing the date of this Order and ending June 30, 2028. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Honorable Perry Miller, Honorable Maureen O'Connor, each member of the Commission on Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, and the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this 2b day ofFebruary, 2024.
ChiefJustice 02/20/2024

Case Number: AF 06-0263

# alm46,..14,_

:*---• X..)e...C..----F. Justices

2
Office of the Mayor 

CITY OF am~ SIOUX FALLS 

-

0 

WHEREAS, Worker's Memorial Day was established in 1970 by the American Federation of 

Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. We recognize those who have lost their lives 

due to occupational illnesses and diseases; 

WHEREAS, we will come together as communities across the country to show support, 

compassion, and appreciation by observing Worker's Memorial Day; 

WHEREAS, on this day, we urge all to prioritize safety at work by addressing the leading 

causes of workplace fatalities and better understanding of your facilities risks; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Paul TenHaken, Mayor of the City of Sioux Falls, do hereby proclaim 

April 28, 2023, as: 

WORKER'S MEMORIAL DAY 

in Sioux Falls. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 

set my hand and caused the Seal of the City 

of Sioux Falls to be affixed this 28th day of 

~~ 

PaulTenHaken,Mayor
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:26 AM

To: 'steve@psflight.org'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Ferritto, Michelle (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Steve Rhode

January 14, 2015 

Mr. Steve Rhode 

8301 Wycombe Ridge Way 

Wake Forest, NC 27587 

Dear Mr. Rhode: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0799). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration to process your 

petition. Please submit the additional information to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any 

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to nia.daniels@faa.gov. 

 Describe the aircraft make and model for the proposed UAS operation. The description should include 

the following: size and whether the aircraft is fixed wing or rotorcraft. 

 List the aircraft’s cruise speed. 

 

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum. This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual. 

 Describe the process used to document UAS discrepancies and the corrective action taken in the aircraft 

record. Examples of processes include (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain 

its UAS and ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the 

petitioner has elected to maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and 

inspection recommendations. 

 Your petition references a pilot operating manual (POM) and a pilot operating handbook (POH) manual, 

however it was not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of these documents. 

Please provide the additional information by January 28, 2014. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-7626. 

Sincerely, 
2

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
T. O., A Child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1573

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Henry E. Davis, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.