alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.54





Exhibit 10.54




FORM OF AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS FOR DIRECTORS




This Amendment is made as of
 _________ 

, 20
 _____ 

by and between Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and
 _____________ 

(“Director”), with reference to the
following facts:



A. The Company has granted stock options to Director under one or more stock option agreements
to compensate him for his service on the Company’s Board of Directors.



B. The Company has determined that it is in its best interests to ensure that, in the event
that Director ceases to be a member of the Company’s Board of Directors, he will have an adequate
opportunity to exercise his stock options.




NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Director hereby agree as follows:



1. Each stock option agreement between the Company and Director which is currently in force is
hereby amended so that, in the event that Director ceases for any reason to be a member of the
Company’s Board of Directors, Director may exercise each of his vested stock options until the
expiration of one year from the date Director ceased to be a member of the Company’s Board of
Directors, or, if longer, the applicable period specified in the stock option agreement governing
such stock option for exercisability of such stock option following the date on which Director
ceases to be a member of the Company’s Board of Directors; provided, however, that in no event
shall a stock option be exercisable more than ten years from the date such stock option was
granted.



2. In all other respects, the terms and provisions of each stock option agreement between the
Company and Director are hereby ratified and declared to continue in full force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the Company and Director as of the
date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	DIRECTOR
George R. EVANS, Plaintiff, v. Detention Officer CROFT, Sheriff Hans Miller, and Onslow County, NC, Defendants.

No. COA18-468

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 21, 2019

REVERSED. REMANDED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UnitedWisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, J. F. Robertson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ J. F. Robertson          |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | J. F.  Robertson             |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer     |
|   | Dated:  August 15, 2005 |

 

----
CHARLESTON.

#### State *ex rel.*Murasky *v.*State Compensation Commissioner

(No. 6791)

Submitted May 14, 1930.

Decided May 20, 1930.

*England & Ritchie,*for relator.

*H. B. Lee,*Attorney General, and *R. Denwis Steed,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Woods, Judge:

Petitioner seeks by mandamus to require tbe state compensation commissioner to grant bim a rebearing under section 43, c. 71, Acts 1929, from an order of said commissioner refusing bim further compensation for an injury to bis leg, which be alleges to be total and permanent in nature. A demurrer to tbe petition and motion to quash tbe alternative writ awarded thereon were interposed on behalf of tbe commissioner, who for return denied tbe extent of injury set up in tbe petition, alleging that 25 per cent, partial total disability is tbe full measure of the injury, and in support thereof refers to tbe record made before tbe commissioner, which is incorporated in and made a part of said return.

In tbe case of *State ex rel. Meeks*v. *Commissioner,*108 W. Va. 68, 150 S. E. 230, it was held that a bearing by tbe com*219pensation commissioner at tbe request of an employer, employee, or dependent, as provided for by'section 43 of chapter 71 of tbe Acts of 1929, applies only to matters going to tbe basis'of tbe claimant’s or employer’s right, and not to amounts or duration of awards. So, we are met at tbe outset with tbe question of whether or not tbe supplemental claim set up herein goes to tbe “basis of claimant’s right” within tbe meaning of said section.

It appears from tbe examination of February 15,1929, made by one of tbe commissioner’s medical aids, after claimant had been paid compensation at tbe rate of $16 per week for one hundred weeks on a finding of 25 per cent, partial permanent disability, that “there is no change in claimant’s condition over former examination.” There is no evidence to indicate that this report does not properly state the facts.

Claimant argues that the commissioner’s denial of additional compensation amounts to a new finding — a new ease — and therefore goes to the basis of his right. But does this necessarily follow? Such would undoubtedly be true if he had shown a more aggravated condition of- the injury, or a new claim arising therefrom. This position is taken on the ground that the condition relied on was unforseen at the time of the prior finding, and therefore not passed on. Were we to hold, as contended for by relator, that all supplemental claims go to the “basis of claimant’s right,” we would, in effect, be opening up the question of the sufficiency of the amounts and duration of awards, a matter within the discretion of the commissioner. Such matters are not appealable under the statute. *State ex rel. Meeks*v. *Commissioner, supra; McShan*v. *Heaberlin,*105 W. Va. 447, 143 S. E. 109.

We are of opinion that the relator has not shown that clear legal right to have performance of the act he seeks to coerce performance of, and the plain duty to perform it on the part of the respondent, essential to invoke the aid of mandamus. *State ex rel. Ferrel*v. *Commissioner,*108 W. Va. 477, 151 S. E. 706.

*Writ denied.*
exv10w25






Exhibit 10.25




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE NACCO INDUSTRIES, INC.

EXCESS RETIREMENT PLAN

(Effective January 1, 2008)




          NACCO Industries, Inc. hereby adopts this Amendment No. 1 to the NACCO Industries, Inc. Excess
Retirement Plan (Effective January 1, 2008) (the “Plan”), to be effective as of the close of
business on December 31, 2009. Words used herein with initial capital letters which are defined in
the Plan are used herein as so defined.



Section 1




          Section 3.4 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:



     “The Participant described in Section 2.10(c) of the Plan shall have credited to his
Transitional Sub-Account an amount (the “Transitional Benefits”) equal to (a) $60,433 on December
31, 2008 and (b) $62,850 on December 31, 2009 and each following December 31st; provided
that the Participant is employed by the Company on such date(s).”


EXECUTED this 13th day of November, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NACCO INDUSTRIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charles A. Bittenbender
 	 
	 	 	Title: Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary 	 
	 	 	 	 




1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ALBERTO ROCHA RIOS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73788 

Agency No. A205-053-380 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges.

Luis Alberto Rocha Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance or 

administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73788 

review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. SandovalLuna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and 

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause 

Rocha Rios’s motion for an indefinite continuance to allow him to adjust his status 

once his approved relative visa petition became current, where he presented no 

evidence that relief was immediately available to him. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an 

IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 

1247 (no good cause for continuance where relief from removal was not 

immediately available).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination regarding 

administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1118 

(9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5188]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,298]


Ferraz Shawmut, LLC, Newburyport, MA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 19, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Ferraz 
Shawmut, LLC, Newburyport, Massachusetts.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-5188 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 31.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


 I, Phillip E. Powell certify that:

 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of First Cash
  Financial Services, Inc. (the "registrant");

 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
  statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
  make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
  statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
  this annual report;

 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
  information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
  respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
  the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
  report;

 4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
  establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
  defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15e) for the registrant and
  have:

  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
     material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
     is being prepared;

  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about
     the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
     end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
     evaluation; and

  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
     fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
     likely to materially affect the registrant's internal control over
     financial reporting; and

 5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
  our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting,
  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board
  of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
     or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to
     adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
     and report financial data; and

  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
     internal control.

 Date: October 8, 2004

 /s/PHILLIP E. POWELL
 --------------------
 Phillip E. Powell
 Chief Executive Officer
Offer letter - Thomas Truman



 Exhibit 10.11 

 

 

 August 25, 2004 
 Thomas E. Truman 
 Dear Thomas, 
 Congratulations! On behalf of Volterra, I am pleased to offer you the position of Business Development Manager and Strategic Account Manager reporting to Craig Teuscher. 

Your compensation will be $5,192.31 bi-weekly ($ 135,000 per year), less payroll deductions and all required withholdings. You will be eligible to
enroll in Volterras medical, dental, life, and vision plan benefits. You also will be able to participate in our 401(k) plan. Volterra offers Personal Time Off (PTO) and holidays. You will receive options on 25,000 shares of common stock pursuant to
the Company’s stock option plan. Details about these benefit plans are available for your review. 
 As a Volterra employee, you will be
expected to abide by Company rules and regulations, and sign and comply with a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement. 
 We both
acknowledge that neither you, nor Volterra, has entered into a contract of employment, expressed or implied. Employment with Volterra is for an indefinite duration and may be terminated at the will of either the Company or the employee for any
reason, which is not unlawful. 
 This offer sets forth the applicable terms and conditions of our offer of employment to you and supersede all
prior agreements or by anyone, whether oral or written. In accordance with the Immigration and Control Act of 1986, you must be an American citizen or have legal authorization to work in the United States. In either case, verification is required
before you can be placed on the Volterra payroll. Please give special attention to the “Employment Eligibility Verification” (1-9) forms, which need to be signed and witnessed on your first day of employment. 

By agreeing to accept our offer of employment you are verifying that you are legally authorized to work unrestricted in the United States. (If there are
limitations to your ability to legally work, please complete the section below.) 







 Limitations: (please explain completely) 
 Visa status: Type_Expiration Date 
 As part of our hiring process, on the first day of employment
please bring a past pay stub. 
 Please sign and date one letter, and return it to me by September 1, 2004, if you wish to accept
employment at Volterra, under the terms described above. You may keep one copy for your records. 
 I accept your offer as stated and will begin
employment on 9/20/2004. 
 We look forward to your favorable reply and to a productive and enjoyable work relationship. 

Please fax the offer letter to our private fax at 510-657-9056. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Jeff Staszak
	Jeff Staszak
	Acting Director of People

  

	
	ACCEPTED:
	
	/s/ Thomas E. Truman
	Thomas E. Truman
	
	9/20/2004
	Date
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
TierOne Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      (1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
            period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
            the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: November 7, 2003           By: /s/ Gilbert G. Lundstrom
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the Board
                                    and Chief Executive Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to TierOne Corporation and will be retained
by TierOne Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.


                                       41
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-13-00032-CR 

________________________

REGINALD DWAYNE MELTON, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

Navarro County, Texas 

Trial Court No. C34415-CR; Honorable Amanda Putman, Presiding 

 

August 12, 2013 

 

ORDER 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, Reginald Dwayne Melton, was convicted of the offense of possession 

of a controlled substance, penalty group one, under one gram, enhanced by a prior 

felony conviction, and was sentenced by a jury to fifteen years confinement and a fine of 

$15,000.1 The trial court entered a judgment assessing a sentence of fifteen years 

 1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.42(a), 481.115(b) and 481.134(d) (WEST 2010 and WEST SUPP. 2012). 

Accordingly, the offense was punishable by confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for
2

confinement and a fine of $10,000. Appellant filed his brief on May 16, 2013. Among 

the issues raised by Appellant is the contention that the trial court erred by reforming the 

sentence contained in the jury’s verdict. The State’s reply brief was due on or before 

June 17, 2013.2

 TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). The State has not favored us with a brief, nor 

has it requested additional time in which to do so.

While the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure expressly guide us as to what to 

do if an appellant fails to file a brief, there is no corresponding rule to guide us when the 

State fails to file a brief. Several intermediate appellate courts, including this Court have 

held that when the State fails to file a brief, an appellate court should conduct an 

independent analysis of the merits of the appellant’s claim of error, limited to the 

arguments raised at trial by the State. See Little v. State, 246 S.W.3d 391, 397-98 

(Tex.App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.). In this case, the State has heretofore argued that 

the jury charge at the punishment phase permitted the entry of a verdict not authorized 

by the law. While the rules of appellate procedure do not require the State to file a brief, 

under the unique circumstances of this case, we believe an appellate court may 

certainly order that a brief be filed. 

Accordingly, the State is ordered to file a reply brief within thirty days of the date 

of this order.

Per Curiam

Campbell, J., concurring in result.

 

any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years and by a fine not to exceed $10,000. TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. § 12.33 (WEST 2011).

2

Because the 30th day following the date Appellant’s brief was filed was Saturday, June 15, the due date 

for the State’s reply brief was extended to Monday, June 17. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.9

April 13, 2001

GREKA Energy Corporation
630 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10111

Re: Form 10-K Report for the year ended December 31, 2000.

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

As of January 1, 2000, the Company changed from the first in, first out (FIFO)
method of accounting for inventory to the weighted average method. According to
the management of the Company, the average cost method is preferable because the
primary inventoriable cost at the asphalt refinery is crude oil for which the
price fluctuates significantly. The weighted average method balances the impact
of short-term fluctuations in crude oil pricing on the Company's refinery
inventory levels.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we
have reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial
reporting, in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion
stated below is based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to
an acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under
the circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
WebFilings | EDGAR view


 


Exhibit 10.9
 
FPIC Insurance Group, Inc.
 
Executive Incentive
Compensation Plan
 
Summary of 2011 Implementation Guide
 
 
Plan Description
Under this plan, the Compensation Committee of the holding company board will establish performance measures and goal weightings for each year based on synergies and desired focus. The performance measures will be both quantitative and qualitative in nature.
 
Performance Components
Corporate financial measures will be based on corporate relevant metrics and operating subsidiary (OS) measures will be based on OS relevant metrics. Certain senior executives of each OS, including its CEO, will have a portion of their incentive compensation tied to corporate performance given the high degree of synergy with corporate objectives.
 
The following performance component weights will apply to the Company's executive officers for 2011:
 
				
	Tier
	Corporate
	OS
	Individual

	Holding Co. - CEO/CFO
	100% 
	—
	—

	OS - CEO
	100% 
	—
	—




 
Performance Targets
Specific targets will be established on an annual basis for each performance component and will be evaluated on a sliding scale ranging from 50% of the bonus opportunity to 150% of the bonus opportunity.  Any measure falling below the 50% level will reduce the related bonus opportunity to 0%.
 
Individual Target Bonuses
Target bonuses for the following executive officers will be as follows (as a percentage of 2011 base salary):
 
		
	 
Tier
	Target Bonus
(as % of base salary)

	Holding Co. - CEO
	100%

	Holding Co. - CFO
	50%

	OS - CEO
	50%