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


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE


AMCOL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


(as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008)







WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12.2 of the AMCOL International Corporation Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”), AMCOL International Corporation (the “Company”) reserves the right to amend the Plan; and







WHEREAS, the Company, on behalf of itself and all other adopting employers of the Plan, desires to amend the Plan by changing its name, the committee overseeing Plan administration, and Plan amendment procedures.







NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as follows:








	1.	Effective January 1, 2015, the name of the Plan shall be changed to the “Minerals Technologies Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan – PC&E,” and conforming changes shall be made throughout the Plan.











	2.	Effective July 1, 2015, Plan Section 12.2 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following:











		“12.2	Amendment. The Company or Minerals Technologies Inc., by action of its respective Board of Directors, may amend the Plan at any time with respect to all Employers. Any Employer may, at any time, amend or modify the Plan in whole or in Part with respect to that Employer. In addition, the Minerals Technologies Inc. General Counsel may amend the Plan for provisions that (i) are required by the Code, ERISA, or other applicable law, (ii) do not materially increase costs of the Plan to the Company or materially change Participants’ benefits under the Plan, or (iii) clarify ambiguous or unclear Plan provisions.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, no amendment or modification shall be effective to decrease the value of a Participant’s vested Account Balance in existence at the time the amendment or modification is made.”











	3.	Effective January 1, 2015, the first sentence of Plan section 13.1 is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following:










“Except as otherwise provided in this Article 13, the Plan shall be administered by a committee consisting of the members of the Savings and Investment Plan Committee of the Minerals Technologies Inc. Savings and Investment Plan (the ‘Committee’).”


 











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby execute this amendment on behalf of the Company and all other adopting employers of the Plan, and this amendment is executed on this 21st day of August, 2015.







	 	
AMCOL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


	 	 	 
	 	By: /s/	
Thomas J. Meek


	 	 	
Thomas J. Meek


	 	 	 
	 	By: /s/	
Douglas T. Dietrich


	 	 	
Douglas T. Dietrich


	 	 	 
	 	By: /s/	
Jonathan J. Hastings


	 	 	
Jonathan J. Hastings





 


 


2
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification

The undersigned officer certifies that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Headliners Entertainment Group, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Headliners Entertainment Group, Inc. and will be retained
by Headliners Entertainment Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: May 12, 2006                        /s/ Eduardo Rodriguez
                                          ------------------------------
                                          Eduardo Rodriguez (Chief
                                           Executive Officer)
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of Genta Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Gary Siegel, Vice President,
Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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
      Company.





Date:
                      August
      14, 2009/s/ GARY SIEGEL*Name:
                      Gary
      SiegelTitle:
                      Vice
      President,
Finance





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Genta Incorporated and will be retained by Genta Incorporated and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

BOBBY GREEN,
Plaintiff,

v. . Case No. 3:17-CV-436
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -—~—- JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
etal.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST UNITED HEALTHCARE
(DOC. #31)

Plaintiff, Bobby Green, filed this Complaint under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. ("FTCA"), naming as Defendants the United States of
America (“United States”), Medicare and United Healthcare. Plaintiff has alleged
that Defendants Medicare and United Healthcare may have an interest in this
litigation as subrogated parties. Defendant, United States, filed an Answer as well
as a motion to partially dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on behalf of Medicare and the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services. Doc. #28.1 However, because United

Healthcare filed no responsive pleading, Plaintiff, on January 11, 2019, filed a

'The Court will rule on the motion of the United States to partially dismiss the
Complaint in a separate Decision and Entry.


motion for entry of default against this Defendant, Doc. #31, pursuant to “Rules
55(A) and 12(A) of the Rules of Civil Procedure,” claiming that “Defendant United
Healthcare has no right of subrogation, reimbursement, indemnity, or any other
monetary or equitable damages.” Doc. #31, PAGEID#111. Plaintiff included an
affidavit of counsel stating that the summons and complaint were personally
served on United Healthcare on May 22, 2018. Doc. #31, PAGEID#115.

Pursuant to Rule 12 (a)(1)(A)(i), United Healthcare was required to file an
answer within 21 days. Because no responsive pleading was filed, United
Healthcare has forfeited any right it may have had for payment of Plaintiff's
medical bills from the accident which is the subject of this Complaint.
Accordingly, the Court will enter default judgment as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(2) and United Healthcare is barred from asserting any subrogation,
reimbursement, indemnity, or any other monetary or equitable damages from the
accident.

The Court therefore SUSTAINS Plaintiff's motion for entry of default

judgment against Defendant, United Healthcare, Doc. #31.

Date: January 28, 2019 l or Gas
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.A., JR., 

A MINOR CHILD.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00253-CV

Appeal from

233rd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 233-484891-10)

CORRECTED JUDGMENT

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ALBERT TROCHE, JR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 61 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal and Application for Relief are** DENIED

**.**
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            REUNION INDUSTRIES, INC.
                      SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                    Company                      Incorporated       Parent
                    -------                      ------------       ------
<S> <C>                                            <C>                  <C>   <C>
 1  Reunion Industries, Inc.                       Delaware
 2  Oneida Rostone Corp.                           New York             1
 3  DPL Acquisition Corp.                          Delaware             2
 4  Data Packaging Limited                         Bermuda              3      (95 5%)
 5  Data Packaging (Ireland) Limited               Ireland              4
 6  Juliana Vineyards                             California            1
 7  Crescent Farms Company                          Texas               1
 8  The Juliana Preserve, a California
     Partnership                                  California          6,7      (71.7%)
 9  Juliana Preserve Operating Company            California            8
10  Buttes Drilling-C Company                       Texas               1
11  Reunion Titan, Inc.                             Texas              10
12  Reunion Potash Company                         Delaware             1

    INACTIVE COMPANIES
    ------------------
13  Buttes Farms                                  California            1
14  Buttes Resources Canada, Ltd.                  Delaware             1
15  Buttes Resources International, Inc.           Delaware             1
16  Humphries Mineral Industries, Inc.             Colorado             1
17  Northern Enterprises, Ltd.                      Nevada              1
18  Ocean Phoenix Transport, Inc.            District of Columbia       1
19  Treegrove Management Corp.                     Delaware             1
20  Treegrove 1971 Management Corp.               California            1
21  Valley Lemon Growers, Inc.                    California           13
22  Asie-Dolphin Drilling SDN BHD                  Malaysia            10        (49%)
23  Buttes Gas & Oil do Brasil, Ltda.               Brazil              1        (49%)
24  Dolphin Titan (Malaysia) SDN BHD               Malaysia            10
25  Dolphin Titan do Brazil Servicos
     de Perfuracoes, Ltd.                           Brazil             10
26  Monaco Corporation                        British Virgin Is.       10
27  Ocean Phoenix Holdings, N. V.            Netherlands Antilles       1
28  Progress Drilling International, Inc.           Panama             10
29  Progress Perfuracoes do Brasil, Ltd.            Brazil             28

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. NO. 2:17-CR-261(1)

 JUDGE MARBLEY

TREVOR SCOTT SANDS

GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The United States submits that the probation officer has calculated the advisory guideline 

sentencing range in the defendant=s case as being 97-121 months based on a Total Offense Level

28 and Criminal History Category III for Counts 7, 9 and 11 to be followed by 84 month 

sentences for counts 10 and 12 to be served consecutively. The plea agreement recommends a 

sentence of not less than 15 years and not more than 17 years. The probation officer has 

recommended a sentence of 204 months (17 years) and a 5-year term of supervised release. The 

government concurs with the probation officer’s recommended sentence. 

The analysis of the factors to be considered by the Court in determining if a sentence is 

sufficient but not greater than necessary to satisfy Congress= sentencing mandate, justifies a 

sentence of 17 years. The defendant is a 24-year-old male who participated in the armed 

robberies of businesses in central Ohio. The PSIR has done an excellent job of laying out the 

circumstances of the robberies. The harm that was done to the victims of the armed robberies 

cannot be undone. The only common denominator in the three robberies is the defendant. He is 

the individual who recruited the other two co-defendants in the last robbery.

Case: 2:17-cr-00261-ALM Doc #: 116 Filed: 12/19/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 440
2

A sentence of 204 months is adequate to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote 

respect for the law and provide just punishment. Clearly, this sentence will still provide adequate 

deterrence to others who may consider participating in the armed robberies of businesses.

Therefore, the United States submits that a sentence of 204 months and a 5-year term of 

supervised release would be reasonable under the rationale of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 

220 (2005) and United States v. Gall. This sentence will also satisfy the sentencing factors of 18 

U.S.C. '3553(a).

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID M. DEVILLERS

United States Attorney

s/David J. Bosley

DAVID J. BOSLEY (0023460)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

303 Marconi Boulevard

Suite 200

Columbus, Ohio 43215

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Sentencing Memorandum was served this 

19th day of December, 2019, electronically on: Fredrick D. Benton, Jr., attorney for defendant.

s/David J. Bosley

DAVID J. BOSLEY (0023460)

Assistant United States Attorney

Case: 2:17-cr-00261-ALM Doc #: 116 Filed: 12/19/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 441
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 915 V

Filed: August 25, 2014

Not for P ublication

*************************************

DOROTHY DICKINSON

, *

*

Petitioner

, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision b ased on

* s tipulation of f

act

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Anne C. Toale

, Sarasota, FL

, for petitioner.

Jennifer L. Reynaud , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On August 25 , 2014 , the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case

.

I n accordance with t he General Order #9 r equiremen t, petitioner assert s that s he did not

incur any co sts in pursuit of her petition. Petitioner submitted her request for attorneys’ fees and

costs to respondent. During informal discussions, respondent ra ised objections t o certain items in

petitioner’ s application

. R espondent does not contest reimbursement for attor ne ys’ fees and costs

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special master s will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of priva cy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and

move to redact such information prior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

redact such material from public access.2

in the amount of $1 0

, 419

. 54

. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds

this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards $ 1 0

, 419

. 54 , representing

reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a chec k payable

jointly to petitioner and Maglio, Christopher & Toale, P.A.

, in the amount of $ 1 0

, 419

. 54

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is dire cted to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### Moody *v.*Rogers.

Opinion delivered February 4, 1905.

Mandamus — notice. — Under Kirby’s Digest, § 5158, providing .that writs of mandamus, except where used by a court for enforcing its judgments and orders, shall be obtained by motion, and *Id.*§ 4481, providing that notice of such motion shall be served upon the party against whom the judgment or order is sought at least ten days before that motion is made, an order granting a writ of mandamus on less than ten days’ notice will be set aside on appeal.

Appeal from .Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District.

Styles T. Rowe, Judge.

Reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court granting a writ of mandamus against Jake Moody and John Moss, mayor and recorder, respectively, of the town of Hartford, commanding them to issue liquor licenses to appellees, etc. Petition for the *133writ was.filed Jantiary 9, 1905. Notice that application would be made to the court for the writ on January 21, 1905, and was served on the appellants January 19, 1905. The order granting the writ was made January 21, 1905.

Appellants appeared only for the purpose of suggesting want of jurisdiction.

*T. B.*Pryor, for appellants.

*George S.*Evans, for appellees.

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) It does not appear that the writ was for the purpose of enforcing any order or judgment of the court. The proceedings therefore as to notice are controlled by section 4481 of Kirby’s Digest, which requires ten days’ notice after filing the petition before the motion for mandamus is made. See Kirby’s Digest, § 5158.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:17-mj-00759-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 44
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:17-mj-00759-EPD Doc #: 13 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 45
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Te xas

September 9, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00469

- CV

CASH BIZ, LP , Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC dba Cash Biz

, Appellants

v.

Hiawatha HENRY , Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt Coleman Jr., et al.,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Co urt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 01545

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sit ting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice 1

Patricia O. Alvare z, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 1

Jason Pulliam, Jus tice

The court has considered the appellees ’ motion for en banc reconsideration , and the

motion is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________ Jason Pu lliam, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of September, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 Dissents to the denial of the mot ion for en banc reconsideration without requesting a response. See Tex.R.

App.P.49.2.
**Exhibit
23 (ii)**
 
 
 
 **Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
 
 
 
 
 
 *To
the Board of Directors*
 *General
Electric Capital Services, Inc.:*
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-7348) on Form S-3 of General Electric Capital Services, Inc., of our report
dated February 11, 2005, relating to the statement of financial position of
General Electric Capital Services, Inc. and consolidated affiliates as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements of earnings, changes in
shareowner’s equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2004, and related schedules and management’s
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004, which report appears in the December 31, 2004
annual report on Form 10-K of General Electric Capital Services, Inc. Our report
refers to changes in the method of accounting in 2004 and 2003 for variable
interest entities and a change in the method of accounting in 2002 for goodwill
and other intangible assets.
 
 
 /s/ KPMG
LLP
 Stamford,
Connecticut
 March 1,
2005