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






AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
COLFAX CORPORATION 
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
The Colfax Corporation Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows, effective as of December 12, 2018:
		
	1.
	Section 1.18 is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended and restated as follows:


“Disability” or “Disabled” shall mean that a Participant is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. A Participant shall be considered Disabled only if he or she meets one or more of the following criteria: 
(a)      He or she has been determined under the Employer’s long-term disability plan as eligible for benefits thereunder; 
(b)      He or she has been determined by the Social Security Administration as eligible for Social Security disability benefits; or 
(c)  He or she has been determined to be Disabled (as defined above) by the Participant’s physician.
In all other respects the Plan, as amended herein, is hereby ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Colfax Corporation has caused this instrument to be signed by its duly authorized officer as of this 12th day of December, 2018.
COLFAX CORPORATION
By:/s/ Gunnar Gustafson_______________________
Its:  Vice President, HR and Total Rewards_______


1
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Jamie  B.  Coulter,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of Lone  Star
Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 9, 2003 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                                 /s/Jamie B. Coulter
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Jamie B. Coulter
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 October 24, 2003
```
Samuel NORWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4025

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* §§ 775.082(3)(b), 812.133(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005) ; *England v. State*, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2006) ; *Carpenter v. State*, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Dorsett v. State*, 166 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ; *Shivers v. State*, 96 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; *Williams v. State*, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; *Atwater v. State*, 781 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ; *Robinson v. State*, 642 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
EX-10.14(i)






 Exhibit 10.14(i) 

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made by and between Samuel N. Hazen (the
“Executive”) and HCA Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as of January 1, 2019. 

WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, HCA Inc. previously entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) with the
Executive dated November 16, 2006; 
 WHEREAS, on November 22, 2010, the Company completed a corporate
reorganization pursuant to which the Company became the direct parent company of, and successor issuer to, HCA Inc. (the “Corporate Reorganization”); 

WHEREAS, the Company assumed the Employment Agreement in connection with the Corporate Reorganization; 

WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement was previously amended effective February 9, 2011, January 29, 2015,
January 27, 2016 and November 14, 2016; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to further
amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, and other
valid consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 

1.    Amendments. Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following: 
 “a. During the Employment Term, Executive shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company. In such position, Executive shall have such duties, authority and responsibility as shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors which duties, authority and responsibility are consistent with those attendant to such
position with the Company with respect to the business of the Company. Executive shall, if requested, also serve as a member of the Board of Directors of any affiliate of the Company, without additional compensation.” 

2.    Certain Definitions. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment not otherwise defined herein
shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement. 
 3.    Effect of
Amendment. Except as modified hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain unaffected and in full force and effect. 













 4.    Counterparts. This Amendment may be
executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all of which shall constitute but one document. 
 [Signature page
follows] 

  
 2 














 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement,
intending to be legally bound, as of the date first stated above. 
  

			
	HCA HEALTHCARE, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ John M. Steele

	Name:	 	 John M. Steele

	Title:	 	 Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer



  

	
	 /s/ Samuel N. Hazen

	Samuel N. Hazen
1 

# Memo

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 From: Joseph McDonald, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD Date: October 6, 2010 Re: SAE-AEI article on 2012 Nissan HEV system
A hard copy of the February 15, 2010 SAE Automotive Engineering International Online article entitled “Nissan's new 2012 hybrid system aims for 1.8-L efficiency with a 3.5-L V6” is available within EPA’s Docket Center. The article has been copyrighted and is not available within the electronic docket. Parties that wish to view a hard copy of this document can do so at the at the EPA Docket Center: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA We st, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) 

WCoPrDsuD

05/25/10 Email Correspondence 

Jen Bohman EPA Bohman.Jennifer@epa.gov 202-343-9548 

Giedrius Ambrozaitis, Alliance of Automobile Manufactures John Cabaniss Association of International Auto Manufacturers. 

Mr. Cabaniss and Mr. Ambrozaitis. On March 22, 2010, Administrator Jackson signed a proposed rule that would require reporting of fluorinated greenhouse gases (fluorinated GHGs) from certain types of facilities that emit, import or export 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Included in this proposal are requirements to report the import and export of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams (subpart QQ). EPA intended to include imports and exports of HFCs contained in pre-charged motor vehicle air conditioners in the proposed subpart QQ reporting requirement. The proposed rule defines "appliance" as "any device which contains and uses a fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer." We interpret this 

to include motor vehicle air conditioners, which is consistent with our interpretation of “appliance” under the CAA Title VI ozone protection regulations (see, for example, the definition of "MVAC" under section 82.152 as "any appliance that is a motor vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR part 82 subpart B" [regarding servicing of MVACs]). Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before June 11, 2010. For information, including links to the proposed rule, fact 

N
sheets, and technical support documents, visit: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/subpart/fgas.html
#### Angelo Marcellus IRVING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-6705

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Angelo Marcellus Irving, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAKLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Marcellus Irving appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen the time to appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Irving v. Clarke, No. 3:14-cv-00571-JAG (E.D. Va. Apr. 29,2016), We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Dobbin *&*Wife vs. Wright et al.

Mr. Chief Justice English :

The facts, pleadings and decree

in this case are, substantially the same, so far as they are material to the questions of law involved, as in *Dobbin & Wife vs. Hubbard;*and the decree is affirmed, and the cause remanded with like instructions to the court to make suitable directions for the execution of the decree, &c.

Hon. T. B. Hanley, not sitting in this case.
Exhibit 24.3

STATE OF ALABAMA      §
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON      §

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know
all men by these presents, that I, J. DAVID SIMMONS, a Director of AMERICAS
CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint WILLIAM H.
HENDERSON and JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with
full power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for AMERICAS CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30,
2008 and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits
thereto and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf
and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual
Report, incorporating such changes as said attorneys-in-fact deem appropriate,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their
substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

In
witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3rd day of July,
2008.

|                       | 
|---------------------- | 
|/s/ J. David
  Simmons | 
|                       | 
|J. DAVID
  SIMMONS     | 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Before
me this 3rd day of July, 2008, came J. DAVID SIMMONS, personally known to me,
who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney
and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.

|                       | 
|---------------------- | 
|/s/ Janet L.
  Dunaway | 
|                       | 
|NOTARY
  PUBLIC        | 

68

---
#### Dirk KANCILIA; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lloyd Ray WINBURN, an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17027

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Dirk Kancilia, Pro Se

Jon Kancilia, Pro Se

Kyrstin Kancilia, Pro Se

Gina Becker-Zarling, Becker Zarling Law, Avondale, AZ, for Defendants-Appel-lees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Dirk Kancilia, Jon Kancilia, and Kyrstin Kancilia (“the Kancilias”) appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging various federal and state law claims regarding fraudulent financial dealings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on issue preclusion. *Garity v. APWU Nat’l Labor Org.,*828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

*532The district court properly dismissed the Kancilias’ action as barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion because the issue of when the Kancilias’ claims accrued and whether they were entitled to tolling were actually litigated and decided in the Kanci-lias’ prior Nevada state court action. *See Taylor v. Sturgell,*553 U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (issue preclusion bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court .determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the Kancilias’ response to defendants’ motion to dismiss because a “district court has considerable latitude in ... enforcing local rules that place parameters on briefing.” *Christian v. Mattel, Inc.,*286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002); *Hinton v. Pac. Enters.,*5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review). Moreover, the record reflects that the district court considered the Kancilias’ amended opposition.

We do not consider the Kancilias’ arguments regarding the denial of Kyrstin Kancilia’s motion requesting electronic filing because the issue was not properly raised before the district court. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as without merit the Kancili-as’ contentions that the district court’s order for defendants to answer in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was in error, and that default should have been entered against defendants.

Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs, set forth in their answering brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 21, 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Volvo FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 11 , 201 1 b etween Volvo, DOT, and EPA . The attendees included: Volvo: Michael Sorrels, Matthew Heinke EPA: Chien Sze, Arvon Mitcham, Angela Cullen DOT : Coralie Cooper, Maurice Hicks The discussion focused on enhanced coastdown test procedures, including the following:  Grade  Road surface  Coastdown tracks  Coastdown data anal ys s  Trailer specification  Speed range  Tires  Anemometer The agencies also discussed full scale wind tunnel testing and wind averaged yaw with Volvo.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

AARON STONEROCK, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-296 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of 

Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

(Doc. #12). Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees 

in the amount of $3,858.25, and costs in the amount of $400.00, in full satisfaction and 

settlement of any and all claims Plaintiff may have under the EAJA in the above case. 

Prior to Plaintiff filing an EAJA petition, the parties jointly reached a resolution to 

settle EAJA fees in this case. Their Stipulation represents a compromise on disputed 

positions and is not intended to set precedent for, or a representation of, any specific 

hourly rate or total number of hours. 

The award of attorney fees will satisfy all of Plaintiff’s claims for fees, costs, and 

expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in this case. Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff, and not 

his attorney, can be offset to satisfy pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United 
2

States under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). 

After the Court enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that 

Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, Defendant agrees to direct that the 

award be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly 

signed by Plaintiff. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #12) is accepted 

and Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees, costs, and 

expenses in the total amount of $4,258.25; 

2. Counsel for the parties shall verify, within thirty days of this 

Decision and Entry, whether or not Plaintiff owes a preexisting debt to the United States subject to offset. If no such 

pre-existing debt exists, Defendant shall pay the EAJA award 

directly to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the EAJA assignment 

signed by Plaintiff; and 

3. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

December 10, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

Thomas M. Rose

 United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6433

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRANK LATHAN HINTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-94-106-2, CA-96-875-2)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 7, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Lathan Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Arenda L. Wright Allen,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions in which the United

States is a party have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are

when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on December 4, 1996;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on February 14, 1997, which

is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note

a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant's motion for an injunction

and dispense with oral 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
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Initiative on Fetal 
Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (CIFASD) Consortium Review Panel (RFA AA 
21-010,011,012,013,14).
    Date: March 31, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Philippe Marmillot, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Extramural Project Review Branch, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, 
Room 2118, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 443-2861, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#761b17041b1f1a1a190206361b171f1a58181f1e58111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f19c90839c989d9d9e8581b19c90989ddf9f9899df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 1, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02362 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.35




Summary of Modifications to Employment Agreement, effective March 1, 2018, between GrafTech International Holdings Inc. and David J. Rintoul


Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement, effective March 1, 2018, between GrafTech International Holdings Inc. and David J. Rintoul; capitalized terms have the meanings defined therein. In connection with the eventual sale of Mr. Rintoul’s previous residence in November 2018, the Company agreed to increase the limit for Residence Sale Losses to $250,000.  Mr. Rintoul also participates in the employee benefit programs of the Company, which benefits have increased since the original date of his agreement, including health benefits, a 401(k) plan (including a 5% Company cash match on eligible employee contributions) and a defined contribution retirement plan (with a 3% contribution on eligible earnings).