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








EXHIBIT 10.6.2
AMENDMENT 2018-1
THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. AND AFFILIATES
DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND INCENTIVE PLAN
(as amended and restated as of January 1, 2017)
WHEREAS, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. ("PNC") sponsors The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and Affiliates Deferred Compensation and Incentive Plan (the "Plan"); 
WHEREAS, Section 10 of the Plan authorizes PNC to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, PNC wishes to amend the Plan to eliminate the cancellation of a deferral election following a hardship withdrawal from The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Incentive Savings Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that, effective as of January 1, 2019, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.    Section 3.3 of the Plan ("Cancellation or Revocation of Deferral Elections") is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
"3.3    Cancellation or Revocation of Deferral Elections.
A Participant's Deferral Election for a Plan Year may be cancelled by the Committee or its delegate for the remainder of such Plan Year upon (i) the Participant's taking a hardship withdrawal under the DCP or the SISP (as applicable); (ii) the Participant's Disability, provided that the suspension occurs by the later of the end of the Participant's taxable year and the 15th day of the third month following the date the Participant incurs the Disability; and (iii) the Participant's receipt of a distribution from the Plan on account of an Unforeseeable Emergency.  Any such cancellation shall apply to any Base Salary and Eligible Short-Term Incentive Pay subject to such Deferral Election that would otherwise have been payable after the date of such suspension and before the end of such Plan Year.  In addition, all of a Participant's existing Deferral Elections will be deemed to have been revoked upon (A) a termination of the Plan or the portion thereof covering the Participant, to the extent permitted under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A; or (B) the Participant's Severance From Service (except with respect to any Base Salary and/or Eligible Short-Term Incentive Pay earned before the Severance From Service)."
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]




1    










Executed and adopted by the Chief Human Resources Officer of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. this 18th day of December, 2018 pursuant to the authority delegated by the PNC's Personnel and Compensation Committee.
	
	
	 

	 

	/s/ Vicki C. Henn   

	Vicki C. Henn

	Executive Vice President

	Chief Human Resources Officer










[Signature Page to Amendment 2018-1 to
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and Affiliates Deferred Compensation and Incentive Plan]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

April 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-11082

Summary Calendar

IN THE MATTER OF: BILLY RAY DELP, JR. Debtor.

BILLY RAY DELP, JR; GERTRUDE DELP,

Appellants,

VERSUS

OAKVIEW LTD,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

USDC No. 01-CV-736

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Billy Ray Delp, Jr. and Gertrude Delp (hereinafter referred to

collectively as “the Delps”) appealed to this Court from the final

judgment entered by the United States Dist rict Court for the

Northern District of Texas on August 23, 2002, which affirmed an

order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court entered on June 27, 2002, which2 g:\OPIN-SC\02-11082.OPN.WPD denied the Delps’ a mended motion for re-reconsideration of the

judgment of the bankruptcy court entered on February 28, 2001. For

the reasons stated by the U.S. District Court in its “Order

Affirming Bankruptcy Court” entered under date of August 23, 2002,

we AFFIRM the final judgment of the District Court entered of even

date therewith. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
10.02

    


    On
January 1, 2008, Neuralstem’s Compensation Committee approved an increase in the
salary of Mr. Garr.  The increase amends the portion of his employment
agreement with respect to salary level.  Mr. Garr’s annual salary is
$407,000 per year.  All other terms of the employment agreement remain
in effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Protocol
Systems, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2000 and
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the
three months ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           9,825
<SECURITIES>                                    16,604
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,507<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       417
<INVENTORY>                                     10,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,472
<PP&E>                                          16,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,991
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,347
<SALES>                                         17,667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,667
<CGS>                                            8,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,973
<INCOME-TAX>                                       592
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,381
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
<FN>
<F1>Net of allowance.
<F2>The amount of loss provision is not significant and has been included in other
expenses.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 15






Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


Dear Sirs:


We are aware that Acme Metals Incorporated has included our report dated
November 10, 1998 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing
Standards No. 71) in the Prospectuses constituting part of its Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-17235, 33-19437 and 33-30841) and in its
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-38747 and 33-59627). We are also
aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP              
-------------------------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP



Chicago, Illinois
November 10, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7944-7945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02940]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 313

[Docket ID: DOD-2019-OS-0109]
RIN 0790-AK59


The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff 
Privacy Program

AGENCY: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, 
Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff Privacy 
Program. On April 11, 2019, the Department of Defense published a 
revised DoD-level Privacy Program rule, which contains the necessary 
information for an agency-wide privacy program regulation under the 
Privacy Act and now serves as the single Privacy Program rule for the 
Department. That revised Privacy Program rule also includes all DoD 
component exemption rules. Therefore, this part is now unnecessary and 
may be removed from the CFR.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Roseman, 703-695-7071.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD now has a single DoD-level Privacy 
Program rule at 32 CFR part 310 (84 FR 14728) that contains all the 
codified information required for the Department. The Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff Program regulation at 32 CFR 
part 313, last updated on November 14, 1991 (56 FR 57802), is no longer 
required and can be removed.
    It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal 
for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to 
public interest since it is based on the removal of policies and 
procedures that are either now reflected in another CFR part, 32 CFR 
part 310, or are publicly available on the Department's website. The 
Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is governed by the Privacy Act 
implementation policies of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    This rule is one of 20 separate component Privacy rules. With the 
finalization of the DoD-level Privacy rule at 32 CFR part 310, the 
Department eliminated the need for this component Privacy rule, thereby 
reducing costs to the public as explained in the preamble

[[Page 7945]]

of the DoD-level Privacy rule published on April 11, 2019 at 84 FR 
14728-14811.
    This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 313

    Privacy.

PART 313--[REMOVED]

0
Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 313 is 
removed.

    Dated: February 8, 2022.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2022-02940 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARACELI HERNANDEZ; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74986

Agency Nos. A096-385-884

 A096-385-880

 A096-385-881

 A096-385-883

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Araceli Hernandez and three of her sons, natives and citizens of Mexico,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ orders dismissing their

appeals from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decisions denying their applications

for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

NOV 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74986

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and

we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that the threats petitioners

received from police after they sought to file a complaint against a police officer

amounted to persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See

Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-38 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without

more, generally do not constitute persecution); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d

646, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (threats alone did not demonstrate a clear probability of

persecution). Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail. See 8

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).

We lack jurisdiction to review any assertion by Hernandez’s son, Raymundo

San Augustin-Hernandez, that he is eligible for CAT relief, because he specifically

declined to apply for that relief before the IJ. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d

674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT

relief to the remaining petitioners because they failed to establish it is more likely 
3 07-74986

than not that they will be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder,

558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Klaus BOETTCHER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1507

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 09, 2017

Upon consideration of appellee's motion to dismiss and appellant's response thereto, it is ordered that the above styled appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

SUAREZ, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
EX-10.22





 Exhibit 10.22 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO ADVISORY AGREEMENT 

This Second Amendment to the Advisory Agreement (this “Amendment”) made this
14th day of December, 2018 but effective as of July 2, 2018, by and between Resource Apartment REIT III, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Resource REIT
Advisor, LLC (f/k/a Resource Apartment Advisor III, LLC), a Delaware limited liability company (the “Advisor”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein will have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Advisory Agreement.

 WHEREAS, the Company and the Advisor previously entered into that certain Advisory Agreement dated April 28, 2016 which was amended
pursuant to that certain First Amendment to Advisory Agreement dated April 13, 2018 (together, the “Advisory Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.02 of the Advisory Agreement, the Company and the Advisor desire to amend the Advisory Agreement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and of other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Advisory Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 

1.    Amendment to Section 8.02(b). Section 8.02(b) of the Advisory Agreement shall be deleted in its
entirety and replaced as follows: 
 “(b) After the Company’s reporting of NAV, one-twelfth
of 1.0% of (i) the Appraised Asset Values for all assets owned on the date of the most recently determined NAV plus, (ii) until the date of the next determination of NAV, the Cost of Investments, as of the end of the current month,
for all Properties, Loans and Permitted Investments acquired after the most recently determined NAV, if any.” 
 2.    Limited
Effect; No Modifications. This Amendment is effective as of July 2, 2018. The amendments set forth above shall be limited precisely as written and relate solely to the provisions of the Advisory Agreement in the manner and to the extent
described above. Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing contained in this Amendment will be deemed or construed to amend, supplement or modify the Advisory Agreement or otherwise affect the rights and obligations of any party thereto, all of
which remain in full force and effect. 
 [signatures contained on following page] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date and year
first above written. 
  

					
	Resource Apartment REIT III, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alan F. Feldman

	 	 	Name:	 	Alan F. Feldman
	 	 	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
	
	Resource REIT Advisor, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alan F. Feldman

	 	 	Name:	 	Alan F. Feldman
	 	 	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer and Manager


 [signature page to Second Amendment to Advisory Agreement for Resource Apartment REIT III]
Jimmy Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Angela HILL, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Eddie BROWN Jr., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2245

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this administrative appeal from the Florida Department of Revenue, Child Support Program is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated October 17, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00002-CV

South Texas Crane Service, Inc., Sandra Joyce Vaught, Jerry Young, Thomas Randall 

Young, TRY Equipment Rentals LLC, and Young Heavy Haul, Inc.

v.

Commercial Credit Group Inc.

On Appeal from the

267th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22-07-88794-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 16, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter  ended  September 30, 1996 for Hallwood  Consolidated  Resources
Corporation and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883953
<NAME>                        Hallwood Consolidated Resources Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         404
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,780
<PP&E>                                         276,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                 210,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 75,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,281
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       111
<OTHER-SE>                                     40,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   75,796
<SALES>                                        24,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25,591
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,498
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,938
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,041
<INCOME-TAX>                                   115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,926
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,926
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  6.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  6.41
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11101

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ORLANDO DEMETRIUS WHEAT,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-161-ALL-A

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 2000, Orlando Demetrius Wheat was convicted pursuant to a

guilty plea of being a prohibited person in possession of a

firearm. He was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and three

years of supervised release. Wheat appeals the sentence imposed

following the revocation of his supervised release. 

Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220 (2005), Wheat complains that the 27-month term of
No. 04-11101

-2-

imprisonment imposed for his conviction and the 14-month term of

imprisonment imposed for his violation of supervised release

exceeded in the aggregate the 33-month total term of imprisonment

allowed under the United States Sentencing Guidelines for his

initial conviction based on the facts alleged in his indictment

and admitted by him. Wheat argues as a result that the district

court was authorized to impose no more than a six-month term of

imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release unless the

facts pertaining to his release violations were alleged in an

indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Wheat

contends that the alleged Booker violation in his case cannot be

cured by application of Booker’s remedial advisory guidelines

system because his initial sentence is final and because it would

violate due process and ex post facto laws. Wheat’s arguments

lack merit. See United States v. Alfaro-Hernandez, 453 F.3d 280,

281-82 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114,

116-19 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). 

The 14-month term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of

Wheat’s supervised release did not exceed the statutory maximum

term of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Accordingly, Wheat’s sentence upon

revocation was neither “unreasonable” nor “plainly unreasonable.” 

See Hinson, 429 F.3d at 120.

AFFIRMED.