alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amended Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 



 
 September 30, 2011 
 Michael Pangia 
 c/o Aviat Networks, Inc. 
 5200 Great America Parkway 
 Santa Clara, CA 95054 

Amendment to Employment Agreement 
 Dear Mike: 
 This amendment relates to the letter agreement dated July 18,
2011 (the “Agreement”) setting forth the terms of your continued employment with Aviat Networks, Inc. (the “Company”). 
 Section 3(b) of the Agreement provides that, subject to yearly approval, you will receive an annual incentive with a target value equal to 100% of your base salary. Section 3(c) of the Agreement
provides that, subject to Board authorization, you will receive a long-term incentive whose initial value will be $733,333. 

In the design of the fiscal 2012 annual incentive plan and fiscal 2012 long-term incentive plan for the Company’s executives, you,
together with the Company’s Human Resources department and with the approval of the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, have applied a floor value of $3.75 per share of the Company’s common stock for purposes
of awards consisting of restricted stock. This means that, in translating dollar values, such as those referred to above, into awards of restricted stock, the value attributed to each restricted share is the higher of fair market value on the award
date or $3.75. If the fair market value on the award date is below $3.75, applying the floor value will result in the award of fewer restricted shares than would be awarded based solely on fair market value. 

We understand that it has been your intent to apply the $3.75 floor to your own fiscal 2012 equity awards on the same basis as it applies
to other Company executives. 
 Therefore, the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence at the end of
Section 3(b) and at the end of Section 3(c): 
 For purposes of calculating the value of any restricted shares included
in your award for fiscal 2012, a minimum value of $3.75 per share shall be applied. 








 Michael Pangia 
 Amendment to Employment Agreement 
  

 Please sign this letter on the space provided below to acknowledge your agreement to
this amendment. 
 Sincerely, 
  

			
	Aviat Networks, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Charles D. Kissner

		 	 Charles D. Kissner

Chairman


 I agree to the foregoing amendment. 

 

	
	 /s/ Michael Pangia      

	Michael Pangia
	President and CEO



  
 2
NO. 2284

IN RE: ESTATE OF § IN THE COUNTY COURT § WILLIAM H. MCNUTT § SITTING IN MATTERS PROBATE § DECEASED § KIMBLE COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL
This Notice of Appeal is filed by Defendants J. David Boland, Independent Executor of the Estate of William H. McNutt, Deceased, McNu tt Ranch, Ltd, and McNutt Management, L.L.C. , who seek to appeal the trial court’s judgment dated February 20, 2015. Defendants desire to appeal from all parts of this judgment and appeal is be ing taken to the Fourth Court of Appeals in San
Antonio. Respectfully submitted,

Craig L. White State Bar No. 21292400 Law Office of Craig L. White 111 West Olmos Drive San Antonio, Texas 78212 210. 829.7183/f: 210. 829.0734 craigwhite@111westolmos.com /s/ 

# Jeff Small

Jeff Small State Bar No. 00793027 L AW O FFICE OF J EFF S MALL 12451 Starcrest Dr., Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78216 .2988 210.496.0611/f: 210.579.1399 jdslaw@satx.rr.com

Counsel for Defendants

Page 1 of 2 Notice of Appeal.wpd ACCEPTED 04-15-00110-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 2/27/2015 5:43:31 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK 04-15-00110-CVCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 27th day of Februa ry, 2015, a true and correct copy of Defendants' Notice of Appeal was served on counsel of record/ interested parties pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:

John F. Nichols, Sr. NICHOLS LAW, PLLC 5020 Montrose, Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77006 john@nicholslaw.com Mr. Keith E. Hottle, Clerk Fourth Court of Appeals 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 Cadena Reeves Justice Center San Antonio, TX 78205

/S/ 

# Jeff Small Craig L. White Jeff Small

Page 2 of 2 Notice of Appeal.wpd
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-698V 

(Not to be published) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* 

JANICE GLAUS, * 

* Filed: July 23, 2014 

Petitioner, * 

* 

v. * 

* Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Fees and Costs

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

John R. Howie, Howie Law, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On October 21, 2011, Janice Glaus filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On February 18 2014, the parties filed a 

stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. On February 19, 2014, I issued a 

decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award 

outlined by the stipulation. 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 

205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C § 

300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential 

information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) permit each party 14 days within which to request redaction “of any 

information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is 

privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute 

a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the decision will be available to the 

public. Id.

 
On July 23, 2014, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time 

regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should 

receive a lump sum of $23,912.86 in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and 

Petitioner’s counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In 

addition, in accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a statement on July 23, 2014, 

indicating that she had incurred no reimbursable costs in pursuit of her claim.

I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, 

an award should be made in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

counsel, John R. Howie, Esq., in the amount of $23,912.86. In the absence of a motion for 

review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER 

JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing (jointly or separately) notices 

renouncing their right to seek review.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

d0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138125(18)

ANTHONY T. MAYES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138125 COA: 287367 WCAC: 06-000099 CITY OF OAK PARK and MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FUND, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s April 28, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
Exhibit 10.22



 





EXHIBIT
10.22




BOWATER INCORPORATED REPAYMENT AGREEMENT




     I, W. Eric Streed, an employee of BOWATER INCORPORATED (the “Company”), have
received a bonus amount equal to $127,650 (the “Bonus”) from Bowater Incorporated
(the Company) in connection with services rendered in anticipation of the merger
between Bowater Incorporated and Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (the “Merger”).



     I hereby agree that if my employment with the Company or an affiliate of the
Company terminates within thirty-six months of the effective date of the Merger
as the result of either my voluntary termination or my involuntary termination
for cause, I will be required to reimburse the Company for a prorated portion of
the after-tax value of my Bonus. In order to determine the after-tax value, the
effective tax rate shall be assumed to be 43%. The proration of the amount of
Bonus owed shall be computed as follows:


(1 — (days from effective date of the Merger to date of termination divided by 1,095)).




     The Company shall, to the extent permitted by applicable laws, reduce any
compensation otherwise due to me upon my termination of employment, including but
not limited to regular wages, severance pay and bonuses, by the amount of the
Bonus that I am required to reimburse the Company.



     The amount of the Bonus owed by me shall bear interest at the maximum rate
of interest permitted by law from the date of the termination of my employment
until the date of repayment. In addition, I agree to pay all costs of
enforcement and collection, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s
fees.



     This Agreement shall be binding upon me and my heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of and be
enforceable by the Company, its successors and assigns.



     No provision of this Agreement may be modified, waived or discharged except
in a writing specifically referring to such provision and signed by the party
against which enforcement of such modification, waiver or discharge is sought.
No waiver by either party hereto of the breach of any condition or provision of
this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other condition or provision at
the same or any other time.



     The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall
not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this
Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect.



     The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this
Agreement shall be governed by the substantive laws of the State of South
Carolina.



	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ W. Eric Streed
	 	 	 	 
	 

Signature: W. Eric Streed

	 	 

Date
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         HORSESHOE GAMING HOLDING CORP.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                             AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999


SUBSIDIARY                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION
----------                                      ----------------------

Horseshoe GP, Inc.(1)                                 Nevada
New Gaming Capital Partnership(2)                     Nevada
Horseshoe Entertainment L.P.                          Louisiana
Bossier City Land Corporation(3)                      Louisiana
Robinson Property Group, Limited Partnership          Mississippi
Empress Casino Hammond Corporation(6)                 Indiana
Hammond Residential LLC(4)                            Indiana
Hammond Bridge and Road Works(4)                      Indiana
Empress Casino Joliet Corporation(6)                  Illinois
Horseshoe Gaming, Inc.(6)                             Nevada
Horseshoe Ventures(5)                                 Nevada
Red Oak Insurance Company Ltd.(6)                     Barbados
Horseshoe Maryland, Inc.(6)                           Maryland



(1)      100% owned by Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp. and is the 1% General
         Partner of both New Gaming Capital Partnership and Robinson Property
         Group Limited Partnership.

(2)      New Gaming Capital Partnership is the 89% General Partner and a 2.92%
         Limited Partner of Horseshoe Entertainment L.P.

(3)      Bossier City Land Corporation is 100% owned by Horseshoe Entertainment.

(4)      Hammond Residential LLC and Hammond Bridge and Road Works are 100%
         owned by Empress Casino Hammond Corporation

(5)      Horseshoe Ventures is owned 50% by Horseshoe Gaming, L.L.C.

(6)      100% by Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3339 

To allow certain Indonesian citizens to file a motion to reopen their asylum 

claims. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 25, 2012 

Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To allow certain Indonesian citizens to file a motion to 

reopen their asylum claims. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indonesian Family 

5 Refugee Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MOTION TO REOPEN ASYLUM CLAIMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subparagraphs 

8 (B) and (C) of section 208(a)(2) of the Immigration and 

9 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)) and section 

10 240(c)(7) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)), and notVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:50 Jun 27, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3339.IS S3339

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3339 IS

1 withstanding any other provision of law on motions to re2 open removal or deportation proceedings, an alien may file 

3 1 motion to reopen an asylum claim during the 2-year pe4 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 

5 if the alien— 

6 (1) is a citizen of Indonesia; 

7 (2) entered the United States after January 1, 

8 1997, and before November 30, 2002; 

9 (3) filed an application for asylum that was de10 nied asylum based solely upon a failure to meet the 

11 1-year application filing deadline; 

12 (4) is not subject to the safe third country ex13 ception under section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigra14 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(A)); 

15 and 

16 (5) is not subject to a bar from seeking asylum 

17 under section 208(b)(2) of the Immigration and Na18 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)). 

19 (b) APPLICATION FROM ABROAD.—The motion to re20 open referred to in subsection (a) may be filed in the 

21 United States or from outside the United States. 

22 (c) RETURN OF APPLICANTS ABROAD.—An alien who 

23 meets the requirements under subsection (a) may be ad24 mitted or otherwise authorized to enter the United States 

25 solely to prosecute a motion to reopen under this section 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3339 IS

1 or otherwise to pursue relief under this section. Hearings 

2 pursuant to this section may be held in the United States 

3 or outside the United States, with the alien appearing in 

4 person or by video phone or similar device. 

5 (d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this Act, the 

6 terms used in this Act have the meanings given such terms 

7 in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

8 (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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. 97-20300

Summary Calendar

 

LESLIE WILLIAM MORGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL COKER ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-203

- - - - - - - - - -

August 13, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leslie William Morgan, Texas prisoner # 677163, appeals the

district court’s dismissal as frivolous his claims of malpractice

and conspiracy against his counsel and subsequent grant of summary

judgment in favor of the remaining defendants in his civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Morgan’s claims against all of the

defendants, including his counsel, are frivolous under Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). A judgment in favor of Morgan on

his § 1983 claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

second conviction. See Hudson v. Hughes, 98 F.3d 868, 872-73 (5th
No. 97-20300 

-2-

Cir. 1996); Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 103 (5th Cir. 1996);

Wells v. Bonner, 45 F.3d 90, 95 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Morgan

has not demonstrated that his second conviction has been

invalidated, his claims against the defendants are not cognizable

in a § 1983 action. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. 

Morgan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

All outstanding motions of both parties are DENIED.

Additionally, Morgan is warned that future frivolous appeals

will invite the imposition of sanctions. Morgan should review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise frivolous

arguments.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3384 

To extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2012 

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. JOHNSON of 

South Dakota) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To extend supplemental agricultural disaster assistance 

programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supplemental Agricul5 tural Disaster Assistance Extension Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSIST7 ANCE. 

8 (a) FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT.—Section 531 

9 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1531) is 

10 amended— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3384 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b)(4)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (A)(i)(II), by insert3 ing ‘‘the first 5 months of’’ after ‘‘received for’’; 

4 and 

5 (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘the 

6 first 5 months of’’ after ‘‘during the’’; and 

7 (2) in subsection (i), by striking ‘‘2011’’ and in8 serting ‘‘2012’’. 

9 (b) TRADE ACT OF 1974.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 901 of the Trade 

11 Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2497) is amended— 

12 (A) in subsection (b)(4)— 

13 (i) in subparagraph (A)(i)(II), by in14 serting ‘‘the first 5 months of’’ after ‘‘re15 ceived for’’; and 

16 (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting 

17 ‘‘the first 5 months of’’ after ‘‘during the’’; 

18 and 

19 (B) in subsection (i), by striking ‘‘2011’’ 

20 and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

21 (2) AGRICULTURAL DISASTER RELIEF TRUST

22 FUND.—Section 902 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 

23 U.S.C. 2497a) is amended— 

24 (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking 

25 ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3384 IS

1 (B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘the 

2 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008’’ 

3 and inserting ‘‘Supplemental Agricultural Dis4 aster Assistance Extension Act of 2012’’. 

5 (c) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by this 

6 section apply only to losses that are incurred as the result 

7 of a disaster, adverse weather, or other environmental con8 dition that occurs during the 2012 crop year. 

9 SEC. 3. OFFSET PROVISIONS. 

10 øTo be supplied¿ 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF ) AMERICA, INC. d/b/a 

### AIRLINES FOR ) AMERICA, ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., ) AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ATLAS AIR, ) INC. , FEDEX EXPRESS AIRLINES, ) HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., JETBLUE ) AIRWAYS INC., SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. , ) UNITED AIRLINES , INC., UNITED PARCEL ) SERVICE CO., and 

### AIR CANADA, ) Complainants,
V. 

### PORT OF PORTLAND , OREGON Respon dent. ) 

## ? ) ) ) ) ) 

### FAA Docket No. 16-16 -04

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Admini strat ion (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for FederallyAssisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in thi s matter is hereby extended to January 20, 

### 2017. An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this ase .

K in Willis D rector, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 22, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States Mail a true copy ofthe FAA's Notice ofExtension ofTime for FAA Docket No. 16-16-04 addressed to: For Complainants David Berg, Esq., Vice President & General Counsel Doug Mullen, Esq., Assistant General Counsel Air Transport Association of Amer ica, Inc. d/b/a Airlines for America 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, St e 1300 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 626

-4234 Email: dberg@airlines.org dmullen@airlines.org For Respondent
Daniel Blaufus, Esq ., General Coun sel Ian Whitlock, Esq., Deputy General Counsel Wendy Hain, Esq., Assistant General Counsel The Port ofPortland 7200 NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97218 Email: dan.blaufus @ portofportl and
. com ian.whitlock@portofportland.com wendy.hain @ portofportland.com Phone: 503-415-6062 Fax: 503-944-7080 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings D ocket Roy Goldberg, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W
. Washington, D.C
. 20036 (202) 429 -8 028 Email: rgoldberg@steptoe.com

Pablo 0. Ntiesch , Esq. Spiegel &McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Email: pablo
. nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Phone:202-879

-4000 Fax:202

- 393-2866

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis , AC0

- 1 00

# ~~!tif+

2 Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis