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


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE

TO THE

CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY LP SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE

RETIREMENT PLAN


 


WHEREAS, effective January
1, 2001, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP (the “Company”) established the
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
(the “Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, the Plan was
subsequently amended and restated effective January 1, 2005; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section
VIII of the Plan, the Company reserves the right at any time and from time to
time to amend the Plan in whole or in part;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED,


 


1.                                       Effective January 1, 2006, Section IV is
amended by the addition of the following new Paragraph D:


 


D.            Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Plan to the contrary, if the SERP Member is not
vested in the Retirement Plan at the time of Separation from Service, but is
(i) a former employee of Chevron Corporation or one of its subsidiaries (for
purposes of this Paragraph D, “Chevron”) or ConocoPhillips or one of its
subsidiaries (for purposes of this Paragraph D, “COP”) and (ii) retirement
eligible under the Chevron Retirement Plan or the ConocoPhillips Retirement
Plan upon his termination of employment from Chevron or COP, such SERP Member
will be entitled to a Supplemental Retirement Benefit in an amount equal to the
Unrestricted Retirement Benefit that would be payable under the Retirement Plan
to the SERP Member had the SERP Member been vested. Such Supplemental
Retirement Benefit will be calculated at the time of the SERP Member’s
Separation from Service. For purposes of this Paragraph D, a SERP Member is
retirement eligible under the Chevron Retirement Plan or the ConocoPhillips
Retirement Plan if he has satisfied all eligibility requirements, including age
and service requirements, for early or normal retirement under the applicable
plan.


 


Further, the SERP Beneficiary of such SERP Member will
be entitled to a Supplemental Death Benefit in an amount equal to the
Unrestricted Death Benefit that would be payable under the Retirement Plan to
the SERP Beneficiary had the SERP Member been vested in the Retirement Plan and
had the SERP Beneficiary been entitled to payment of a death benefit under the
Retirement Plan at the time of the SERP Member’s death.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Chevron
Phillips Chemical Company LP has caused this Amendment Number One to be
executed this 22nd day of May, 2006.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL

  COMPANY LP

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Raymond I.
  Wilcox

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: Raymond
  I. Wilcox

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
        10.24

      


      


      PROMISSORY
        NOTE

      


      
        	
                $67,304

              	
                December
                  31, 2005

              


      

      


      


      For
        value
        received, Trinity3 Corporation promises to pay Shannon
        T. Squyres
        or order
***sixty-seven-thousand-three-hundred-four
        and 00/100***
        dollars,
        in lawful money of the United States of America, payable in one installment,
        together with -0- interest per annum. The payment is to be upon demand. If
        the
        said installment is not so paid, the whole of said principal sum and interest
        is
        to become immediately due and collectible at the option of the holder of
        this
        note. And in case suit action is instituted to collect this note or any portion
        thereof, the Company promises to pay such additional sum as the Court may
        adjudge reasonable as attorney’s fees in said suit of action. This note
        supersedes all other notes.

      


      Due:
        on
        demand

      


      At:
        Orange County, CA

      Dated:
        December 31, 2005

    

     

    
      	 	 	/s/
              Steven D.
              Hargreaves
	 	
              
Steven
              D. Hargreaves
	 	
              President,
                CFO and
                Director

              Trinity3
                Corporation

            


    

     

    
       

      
        	 	 	/s/
                Shannon T.
                Squyres
	 	
                
Shannon
                T. Squyres
	 	
                CEO
                  and Director

                Trinity3
                  Corporation

              


      

       

       

      
        	 	 	/s/
                Jeffrey S.
                Willmann
	 	
                
Jeffrey
                S. Willmann
	 	
                Director

                Trinity3
                  Corporation
P.O. Box 3086 Oshkosh, WI 54903

- 3086 | Tel 920.426.4800 | Fax 920.426.6560 | www.EAA.org November 4, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building

– ground floor

Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re ference: FAA Exemption No. 8828 D , Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2006

- 24262

The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With

an internati onal membership of more than 200 ,000 people in over 100 nations, EAA brings together pilots, aircraf t builders, owners, and aviation enthusiasts who are dedicated to sharing the Spirit of Aviation by promoting the continued growth of aviation, the preservation of its history and a commitment to its future.

The conditions and reasons regarding public int erest and safety, presented in the original petit ion dated March 22, 2006 and recognized as Exemption No. 8828 , remain unchanged. EAA requests FAA Exemption No. 8828 be renewed for a n additional 2

- year period.

For questions concerning this renewal, please contact th e undersigned at 920

- 426

- 6103.

Respectfully,

Mackenzie Dickson Government Advocacy Specialist
Exhibit 13.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the periodic report of Asia Pacific Wire & Cable Corporation Limited (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Yuan Chun Tang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, ‘‘filed’’ with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: June 26, 2008


/s/ Yuan Chun TangYuan Chun Tang
Chief Executive Officer


---
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50601

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENRIQUE HERRERA-RODRIGUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-618-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Herrera-Rodriguez (Herrera) appeals the 46-month sentence he

received following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable because he received a much harsher sentence for

this, his first illegal-reentry conviction than he did for his prior alien-smuggling

offense, which he asserts is a more serious offense. For that reason, he contends

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50601

2

that the Guidelines are internally inconsistent. Herrera additionally argues that

the sentence imposed fails to take into consideration the circumstances of his

offense or his personal history and characteristics.

Because these arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, they are

reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th

Cir. 2007). In order to demonstrate plain error, Herrera must show clear or

obvious error that affected his substantial rights. Id. at 392. If he can make

that showing, this court has “the discretion to correct the forfeited error but

should do so only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

Herrera has failed to demonstrate any clear or obvious error on the district

court’s part. As he concedes, because his sentence was imposed within the

correctly calculated guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable, and the

district court’s consideration of all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including

the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics

of the defendant, is presumed. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554

(5th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.

2005). Herrera’s assertion that he received a harsher sentence for this illegal

reentry conviction than for his prior alien-smuggling offense ignores the role that

his prior conviction played in the calculation of both his offense level and his

criminal history score in the instant case. The 2005 alien-smuggling conviction

increased Herrera’s offense level by 16 and gave him a total of five criminal

history points, resulting in a criminal history score of III. Thus, it is precisely

because of Herrera’s prior conviction that the instant offense yielded a higher

sentence, and the Guidelines are not internally inconsistent. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
# Skills to last a lifetime, theme of mentoring graduation ceremony

/ Published March 15, 2019
OHIO, Columbus, 
Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime associates were honored during a graduation ceremony that culminated nine months of dedication and work in the Level II Mentoring Program March 13 at the Defense Supply Center Columbus Operations Center Auditorium.

Level II is a voluntary, formal mentoring program for associates at the general salary grades 9 through 12.

                DLA Land and Maritime mentees and mentors graduate the Level II Mentoring Program Mar. 13 at Defense Supply Center Columbus Operations Center Auditorium. The 58 mentees were the first class to have been selected on a competitive bases. The nine month program promotes and improves professional relationships and skillsets.                            Mentor Graduation                            DLA Land and Maritime mentees and mentors graduate the Level II Mentoring Program Mar. 13 at Defense Supply Center Columbus Operations Center Auditorium. The 58 mentees were the first class to have been selected on a competitive bases. The nine month program promotes and improves professional relationships and skillsets.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Michael RowlandVIRIN: 190313-D-RE244-064“Congratulations on investing in yourselves to hone this skill set,” said DLA Land and Maritime Deputy Commander Steve Alsup as he addressed the mentees. “It’s one that you will need throughout your career and throughout your life.”

Participation spanned across the installation and virtually at DLA Land and Maritime detachments.

This year’s Level II mentee class of 58 participants was the first to be selected on a competitive basis due to the increasing interest in the program, said Elana Milligan, the Level II Mentoring Program Manager. 

The mentees were matched with mentors based on the competency needed of the mentee and the expertise of the mentor.

Throughout the program, participants worked on their Mentoring Action Plans, planned monthly events and participated on various teams.

Team assignments included a newsletter committee, program assistants, recognition ceremony coordination and monthly events.After remarks, mentees were joined on the stage with their mentors, DLA Land and Maritime Commander Navy Rear Adm. John Palmer and Alsup for a certificate presentation and photo.

Concluding the individual recognition ceremony, mentees and their mentors took a class photo and gathered one last time as a group to reminisce and celebrate their accomplishment.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**Certificationof**

**PrincipalExecutive Officer**

**of ChasePackaging Corporation Pursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and accompanies the annual reporton Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”) for the fiscal year ended December 31,2008, of Chase Packaging Corporation (the “Company”).  I, Allen T. McInnes, the Chairman of theBoard, President and Treasurer of the Company, certify that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)          The Form 10-K fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the registrant, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 
| Date: March 30,  2009 | By:    |   | /s/ Allen T. McInnes                            |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |   | Allen T. McInnes                                |
|                       |   |   | Chairman of the Board,  President and Treasurer |
|                       |   |   | (Principal Executive  Officer)                  |

 

----
2017-0204.

#### In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 08-1094^EL-SSO, 08-1095-EL-ATA, 08-1096-EL-AAM, and 08-1097-EL-UNC. On appellant Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel’s motion for stay. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEETS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         130,971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,644,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,968,365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,561,471
<PP&E>                                       5,060,180
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,339,848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,248,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,536,239
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,491
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,294,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,248,550
<SALES>                                     21,959,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,959,396
<CGS>                                       13,523,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,542,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             128,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (583,181)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   195,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (388,081)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      596,814
<NET-INCOME>                                   208,733
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT

1

1.The cases listed in Delta’s motion are as follows: 

Cause No. E179234: Delores Preston v. Delta, et al., in the 172nd Judicial District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas 

Cause No. D018110: Carlton Johnson, Sr. and Gloria L. Johnson v. Delta, et al., in the

136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Cause No. E180718: Ivory Pugh and Ressie Pugh v. Delta, et al., in the 172nd District

Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Cause No. B179701: Lino Zamudio and Maria Zamudio v. Delta, et al., in the 60th

Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

2.The cases listed in Southeast’s are as follows:

Cause No. B-060,401-C: Branden Welch v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance Company;

in the 163rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas

Cause No. 27,582: Edwin Bush and Charlotte Bush v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance

Company; in the 1st District Court of Jasper County, Texas

Cause No. 48207: Terry Garrett and Stephanie Garrett v. Ranchers and Farmers Mutual

Insurance Company, and Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc.; in the

88th Judicial District Court of Hardin County, Texas

Cause No. B-070311-C: Jesse Don Fredeck v. Ranchers and Farmers Mutual Insurance

Company, Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc. and Mark Lindoerfer; in

the 163rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas

Cause No. D-070369-C: Jimmy Wilson and Olivia Wilson v. Ranchers and Farmers

Insurance Company, Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc., Prestige

Claims Services, Inc., Mark Anderson and Mark Lindoerfer; in the 260th Judicial District

Court of Orange County, Texas

Cause No. B-070638-C: Billy Burnett and Joan Burnett v. Ranchers and Farmers

Mutual Insurance Company, Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc.,

Mark Lindoerfer and Charlie Vaughn, in the 163rd Judicial District of Orange County,

Texas
EXHIBIT

2

Cause No. 48133: Wesley Young and Amie Young v. Ranchers and Farmers Mutual

Insurance Company, Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, John T. Parker

Claims Service and Chris Ruble, in the 88th Judicial District Court of Hardin County,

Texas

Cause No. 47809: Randy Duplecion and Bobbie “Marcie” Duplecion v. Southeast

Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc., Ranchers and Farmers Mutual Insurance

Company, Prestige Claims Services, Inc., Mark Anderson and Mark Lindoerfer; in the

88th Judicial District Court of Hardin County, Texas

Cause No. D-060-363-C: Julie Chisolm and Alan Mesecher v. Ranchers and Farmers

Insurance Company; in the 260th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas

Cause No. D-060-362-C: Julie Chisolm and Alan Mesecher v. Ranchers and Farmers

Insurance Company; in the 163rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas

Cause No. D-060-369-C: Julie Chisolm and Alan Mesecher v. Ranchers and Farmers

Insurance Company; in the 260th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas

Cause No. D-060-361-C: Julie Chisolm and Alan Mesecher v. Ranchers and Farmers

Insurance Company; in the 128th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Vidro, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 594]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered May 22, 2014, as amended July 22, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and the confirmatory identifications made by undercover police officers. The arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant under the fellow officer rule because “the radio transmission [of] the undercover officer . . . provided details of the defendant’s race, sex, clothing, as well as his location and the fact that a ‘positive buy’ had occurred” and defendant was the only person in the area who matched the description at the location *(see People v Young,*277 AD2d 176, 176-177 [1st Dept 2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 789 [2001]). Although the arresting officer did not testify at the suppression hearing, “the only rational explanation for how defendant came to be arrested ... is that [the arresting officer] heard the *527radio communication [heard by the testifying officer] and apprehended defendant on that basis” *(People v Poole,*45 AD3d 501, 502 [1st Dept 2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 815 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *People v Myers,*28 AD3d 373 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 760 [2006]). The inference of mutual communication *(see People v Gonzalez,*91 NY2d 909, 910 [1998]) does not turn on what kind of radios the officers were using, or how well the radios were working, but on the simple fact that, without hearing the radio transmission, the arresting officer would have had no way of knowing where to go or whom to arrest.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are entirely unpreserved because, during the summation, defendant made only unspecified generalized objections. Although defendant’s postsummation mistrial motion made some specific claims, this was insufficient to preserve those issues, which should have been raised during the summation *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; *People v LaValle,*3 NY3d 88, 116 [2004]). We decline to review any of defendant’s challenges to the summation in the interest of justice.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Acosta, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.