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

Exhibit 10.17.3

AMENDMENT THREE
TO THE
PENSION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.
AND ITS DESIGNATED SUBSIDIARIES
(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2016)
WHEREAS, American Water Works Company, Inc. (the “Company”) sponsors the Pension Plan For Employees of American Water Works Company, Inc. And Its Designated Subsidiaries (the “Plan”) and its corresponding trust for the benefit of its eligible employees; and
WHEREAS, Section 16.1 of the Plan authorizes the Benefits Administration Committee of American Water Works Company, Inc. and Its Designated Beneficiaries (the “Committee”) to amend the Plan for amendments that do not have a material cost; and
WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan, to change the age for the required beginning date from age 70-1/2 to age 72, effective as of January 1, 2020.
WHEREAS, this “Amendment” shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of this Amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that by virtue of the authority reserved to the Committee under Section 16.1 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.    Section 6.6(e)(iv) of the Plan is amended to read as follows:
“(iv)    Required Beginning Date. April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which a Participant reaches age 701⁄2 (age 72 for distributions required to be made after December 31, 2019 with respect to a Participant who attains age 70-1/2 after such date).  The monthly pension of a Participant whose Required Beginning Date is April 1 of the calendar year in which he or she incurs a separation from service shall include an Actuarial Equivalent adjustment to reflect the commencement of payments after April 1 following the calendar year in which he or she attained age 70-1/2.  The Actuarial Equivalent adjustment described in the preceding sentence for any year shall reduce (but not below zero) any increase in the Participant’s Accrued Benefit for the year attributable to additional Years of Service for benefit accrual and Final Average Earnings.”


            (Signature Page Follows)
    



			
	










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 2nd day of     August, 2021.
									
	BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF
	AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY,
	INC. AND ITS DESIGNATED
	SUBSIDIARIES
	
	By:	/s/ NICHOLL SALAMONE
	Nicholl Salamone
			
	Title:	VP, Compensation & Benefits




2
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00706]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

    January 12, 2018, 3:30 p.m.

Agenda

    Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Member Meeting, 
Telephonic.

STATUS: Closed to the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b 
(c)(9)(B).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office 
of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
Dharmesh Vashee,
Deputy General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-00706 Filed 1-11-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
| 1. | The      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                            |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | /s/ Gary      A. Weber     |   |
|   |   | Gary      A. Weber              |   |
|   |   | Vice      President Finance and |   |
|   |   | Chief      Financial Officer    |   |
|   |   | November      13, 2008          |   |
1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1281

___________

Daniel R. Baird, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2007

Filed: April 10, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel R. Baird appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his action for relocation benefits from his employer. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree that summary judgment was

proper for the reasons stated by the district court. See K.C.1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade

Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009, 1019-20 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review). Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Baird’s pending motions.

______________________________
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

**OF TRM CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, KennethL. Tepper, Chief Executive Officer of TRM Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify that the accompanying Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Dated:  May 12, 2004 | /s/ Kenneth  L. Tepper   |   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                      | Kenneth L.  Tepper       |
|                      | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

1

----
Christopher A. CLARK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-3299

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 04, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Unsecured Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.199 
 UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE 
 $100,000.00 Dated: September 11, 2007 
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Biovest International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) promises to pay to the order of Ronald E.
Osman (“Lender”), the principal sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). This Unsecured Promissory Note is created on account of the loan by Lender in the sum of $100,000 to pay and satisfy certain indebtedness of Borrower.

 INTEREST: The unpaid principal shall bear simple interest at the rate equal to the Prime Rate plus 2% as published on the last day
of each month in the Wall Street Journal. No payment of interest shall be due until maturity. 
 MATURITY: The entire principal
balance of this Note shall be due and payable in full on the earlier of (i) The date of closing of a sale of non-strategic assets of Borrower resulting in net proceeds of $5 million or more; or (ii) One year from the date of this Note.
There shall be no penalty for early repayment of all or any part of the principal. 
 DEFAULT: The Borrower shall be in Default of
this Note on the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) the Borrower shall fail to meet its obligation to make the required principal or interest payments hereunder; (ii) the Borrower shall be dissolved or liquidated;
(iii) the Borrower shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors or shall be unable to, or shall admit in writing their inability to pay their debts as they become due; (iv) the Borrower shall commence any case, proceeding, or
other action under any existing or future law of any jurisdiction relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or relief of debtors, or any such action shall be commenced against the undersigned; (v) the Borrower shall suffer a receiver
to be appointed for it or for any of its property or shall suffer a garnishment, attachment, levy or execution. 
 REMEDIES: Upon
default of this Note, Lender may declare the entire amount due and owing hereunder to be immediately due and payable. Lender may also use all remedies in law and in equity to enforce and collect the amount owed under this Note. 
 MISCELLANEOUS: Notwithstanding any provision herein or in any documents or instrument now or hereafter securing this Note, the total liability for
payments in the nature of interest shall not exceed the limits now or at any time in the future imposed by the applicable laws of the State of Delaware. 
 This Note shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, notwithstanding the application of choice of law principles. Borrower hereby waives demand, presentment, notice of
dishonor, diligence in collecting, grace and notice of protest. 
  

			
	 BORROWER:

	 BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Steven Arikian

		
	 Name:
	 	 Steven Arikian, M.D.

		
	 Title:
	 	 Chairman & CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1001 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1001

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
 exemption for telehealth services from certain high deductible health 
                              plan rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2023

Mr. Daines (for himself and Ms. Cortez Masto) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
 exemption for telehealth services from certain high deductible health 
                              plan rules.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Telehealth Expansion Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR TELEHEALTH SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 223(c)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(E) Safe harbor for absence of deductible for 
                telehealth.--A plan shall not fail to be treated as a 
                high deductible health plan by reason of failing to 
                have a deductible for telehealth and other remote care 
                services.''.
    (b) Certain Coverage Disregarded.--Clause (ii) of section 
223(c)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking ``(in the case of months or plan years to which paragraph 
(2)(E) applies)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-80,396-01, WR- 80,396-02

EX P ARTE ADAM LEWIS TRINIDAD, Applicant
ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. 11,317-A AND 11,318- A IN THE 46TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM WILBARG ER COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for wr i t s o f h ab ea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two charg es of sexual assault o f a ch ild and sentenc ed to ten year s’ imprisonment for eac h charg e, to run
consec utively
. Applicant contends that his counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance b ec au s e he failed to timely file notice of appea l. We rema nded these applications to the trial court to aff ord counsel the opp o rt un i ty t o respond to Applicant’s alleg ations. Counsel did not respond to the trial court’s reque st for an aff

idavit addre ssing the alleg ations. The trial court has deter mined that counsel failed2

to timely file notice of appea l. We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-oftime appea l of the ju d gm en t s o f conviction in Cause Nos. 11,317-A and 11,318-A from the 46th District Court of Wil barg er County
. Applicant is ordered returne d to that time at which he may g ive
a written notice of appea l so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaning ful appea l. Within ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall i m mediately appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant on direc t appea l. All time limi t s s h al l b e calc ulated as if the sentenc e had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file
a written notice of a

ppeal in the tria l court within 30 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment o f Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Februar

y 12, 2014 Do not publish
Marie L. HIGHFIELD and William T. Highfield, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-2587

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1042

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Rene Villareal-Duran, also known as *

Duran, also known as Flaco, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2007

Filed: December 11, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rene Villareal-Duran pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following removal. See

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). His offense level was increased by 16 levels under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b) because he had previously been deported after a felony conviction for a

crime of violence. At sentencing, the district court1

 noted Villareal-Duran was

currently incarcerated on state weapons charges, and imposed an 87-month prison

term to run consecutively to the undischarged state term. On appeal, his counsel has
-2-

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence was too harsh and an abuse of discretion because VillarealDuran’s “prior criminal history and use of weapons”--the court’s stated reasons for

sentencing him at the top of the advisory Guidelines range--were fully accounted for

in the criminal history score and the 16-level increase, and because Villareal-Duran

had already served most of his state prison sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing

Villareal-Duran at the top of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (appellate courts must review sentences for

unreasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005)

(standard of review). The record reflects that the court considered only relevant

factors--including Villareal-Duran’s long criminal history and propensity for crimes

involving weapons--and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing those

factors. See Haack, 403 F.3d at 1004 (addressing how sentencing court may abuse its

discretion). Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the federal

sentence to be served consecutively to the state sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c),

p.s. (sentence “may be imposed to run . . . consecutively to the prior undischarged

term of imprisonment”).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
Marco Antonio RODRIGUEZ, DOC #533168, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2706

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.5
 AMENDMENT NO. 5
TO
CREDIT AGREEMENT
     Certain Definitions
 Term Advance Maturity Date Change
 Miscellaneous




---



##### 



M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank
    
    Winland Electronics, Inc.By
    
    /s/ Doug Pudvah
    
    By
    
    /s/ Jennifer A. ThompsonDoug Pudvah
    
    
    
    Jennifer A. ThompsonIts Vice President
    
    
    
    Its Chief Financial OfficerBy
    
    /s/ John W. Howard, Jr.John W. HowardIts Senior Vice President
 - 2 -
Exhibit 31.2
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Joe V. Olree , certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Landmark Land Company, Inc.;
2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;
4.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over reporting.   Date: May 12, 2005 /s/ JOE V. OLREE   Joe V. Olree Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                    |   |                                        |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |                                        |   |
| November 15, 2010  | By:    | /s/ Michael H. Tardugno                     |   |
|                    |   | Michael H. Tardugno                         |   |
|                    |   | President and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|                    |   |                                        |   |

|                    |   |                                       |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |                                       |   |
| November 15, 2010  | By:    | /s/ Jeffrey W. Church                      |   |
|                    |   | Jeffrey W. Church                          |   |
|                    |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                    |   |                                       |   |
STATE of Louisiana v. Travis BOYS

NO. 2018-KK-0404

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 2018

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant a stay and docket for full briefing, argument and opinion.

CRICHTON, J., would grant a stay and docket for full briefing, argument and opinion.

GENOVESE, J., would grant a stay and docket for full briefing, argument and opinion.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 6, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135277 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

IN RE BARBARA HROBA TRUST Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, _____________________________________ Justices 

LUANN HROBA,

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 135277 

 COA: 266783 

Oakland Probate Ct: 

 2004-294178-TV 

GARY HROBA,

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 9, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

REINSTATE the judgment of the Oakland County Probate Court. Because the issue of 

the validity of the amendment to the trust was never litigated in the summary proceedings 

action brought in the 52-4 District Court, res judicata did not bar the petitioner’s action in 

the Oakland County Probate Court. MCL 600.5750; JAM Corp v AARO Disposal, Inc, 

461 Mich 161 (1999); Sewell v Clean Cut Management, Inc, 473 Mich 569 (2001). 

l0130 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 6, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kelvin PEARCE, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D16-764 2D16-2115

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gator KLEIZO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Robert E. RILEY & Myra L. Riley, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3428

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.