alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



Exhibit 10.2  


 
 

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT    
    


        THIS AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT ("Amendment"), dated effective as
of                        , 2002 (the "Effective
Date"), is made by and between Forest Oil Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"), and                        ("
[Executive][Employee]"). 


        WHEREAS, the Company and [Executive][Employee] have heretofore entered into that certain
Severance Agreement dated                        ,            (the
"Severance Agreement"); and 



        WHEREAS, the Company and [Executive][Employee] desire to amend the Severance Agreement in
certain respects; 


        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual agreements set forth herein, the Company and
[Executive][Employee] hereby agree, effective as of the Effective Date, that the Severance Agreement shall be amended as hereafter provided: 


        1.     The
second sentence of Paragraph [7][5](a) of the Severance Agreement shall be deleted and the following shall be
substituted therefor: 



"Within
thirty (30) days after June 14, 2005, and within thirty (30) days after each successive thirty (30)-month period of time thereafter that this Agreement is in effect, the
Company shall have the right to review this Agreement, and in its sole discretion either continue and extend this Agreement, terminate this Agreement, and/or offer
[Executive][Employee] a different agreement." 




        2.     This
Amendment (a) shall supersede any prior agreement between the Company and [Executive][Employee] relating to
the subject matter of this Amendment and (b) shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and any successors to the Company and all persons lawfully claiming under
[Executive][Employee]. 


        3.     As
amended hereby, the Severance Agreement is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the            day
of                        , 2002,
effective as of the Effective Date. 



	

 	
 	
FOREST OIL CORPORATION
	

 	
 	
By:	
 	


	

 	
 	

[EXECUTIVE][EMPLOYEE]




1









QuickLinks


FORM OF AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 12, 2015 520735 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

REYMAN SOSA, 

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 22, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Reyman Sosa, Lawrenceville, Georgia, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Gary

Leibowitz of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed August 5, 2014, which, among other things, ruled

that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance

benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Decision affirmed. No opinion.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.
-2- 520735 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Eric SORIANO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-453

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13377

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-20651-FAM

SANTANA POUZA,

a.k.a. Santana Pouzo,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

USCIS MIAMI, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 1, 2013)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-13377 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Santana Pouza, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, appeals the 

dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P 

12(b)(1). Pouza sought an order directing the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security to grant her parole into the United States. We affirm.

The district court correctly dismissed Pouza’s complaint. The decision 

whether to parole an alien into the United States rests within the discretion of the 

Secretary, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(a), and that discretionary 

decision is shielded from judicial review, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). The district 

court lacked authority to consider Pouza’s complaint under the Mandamus Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 1361, because the Secretary did not owe Pouza a “clear nondiscretionary 

duty.” Lifestar Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th 

Cir. 2004). And the district court could not review Pouza’s complaint under either 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, or the Declaratory Judgment 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, because neither serves as an independent basis for subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Choctaw Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States, 761 F.2d 609, 

615 (11th Cir. 1985) (addressing the Administrative Act); Borden v. Katzman, 881 

F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1989) (addressing the Declaratory Judgment Act).

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Pouza’s complaint.

Case: 12-13377 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                                            24,370
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                 0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      333,362
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            67,482
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             400,844
<LOANS>                                          614,784
<ALLOWANCE>                                        8,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,100,778
<DEPOSITS>                                       900,771
<SHORT-TERM>                                      23,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                8,862
<LONG-TERM>                                       78,362
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             127
<OTHER-SE>                                        69,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1,100,778
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   26,072
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 12,864
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     500
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  39,436
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                17,173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                20,976
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             18,460
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 1,004
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   12,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    8,383
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         7,903
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       7,903
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                         0
<LOANS-NON>                                        3,887
<LOANS-PAST>                                         129
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   7,558
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        117
<RECOVERIES>                                          51
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  8,092
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                0
        


</TABLE>
Norman PLATT Jr., Appellant, v. FOUR FOUNTAINS, INC. and PMA Companies, Appellees.

No. 1D18-2570

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 Northern District of California

JAM CELLARS, INC.,

O'NEILL BEVERAGES CO. LLC,

O'NEILL BEVERAGES CO. LLC

101 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE

SUITE 350

LARKSPUR, CA 94939

J. SCOTT GERIEN

DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGART

1455 FIRST ST., STE. 301

NAPA, CA 94559

17-690 EDL

02/13/2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Susan Y. Soong

Case 3:17-cv-00690-EDL Document 5 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 3:17-cv-00690-EDL Document 5 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Marc Gagnon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, Sterling
Exploration,  Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2008 fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q  fairly  presents in all  material  respects  the  financial
condition and results of operations of Castillo, Inc.


Date: September 29, 2008              By: /s/ Marc Gagnon
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Marc Gagnon
                                      Title: Chief Executive & Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 595 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 595

Designating the week of April 18 through April 24, 2022, as ``National 
                      Osteopathic Medicine Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2022

   Mr. Manchin (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
 Heinrich, and Mr. Grassley) submitted the following resolution; which 
                      was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating the week of April 18 through April 24, 2022, as ``National 
                      Osteopathic Medicine Week''.

Whereas there are more than 134,000 osteopathic physicians and 33,800 
        osteopathic medical students in the United States;
Whereas osteopathic physicians and medical students train at high-caliber 
        schools of osteopathic medicine across the United States, including in 
        rural communities;
Whereas osteopathic physicians have made significant contributions to the United 
        States healthcare system since the founding of the field of osteopathic 
        medicine;
Whereas osteopathic medicine emphasizes a patient-centered approach to 
        healthcare, and osteopathic physicians play an important role in the 
        United States healthcare system;
Whereas osteopathic physicians have been critical in the fight against the 
        coronavirus 2019 pandemic and have worked on the front lines treating 
        patients;
Whereas osteopathic physicians practice in all specialty areas and practice 
        settings of medicine;
Whereas osteopathic physicians and medical students in the United States are 
        dedicated to improving the health of their communities through efforts 
        to increase education and awareness and by delivering high-quality 
        health services; and
Whereas osteopathic physicians currently practice in every State: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the week of April 18 through April 24, 2022, 
        as ``National Osteopathic Medicine Week'';
            (2) recognizes the contributions of osteopathic physicians 
        to the United States healthcare system; and
            (3) celebrates the role that schools of osteopathic 
        medicine play in training the next generation of osteopathic 
        physicians.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.14

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT to that certain Employment Agreement by and
between CHOICEPOINT INC. (ChoicePoint) and CAROL A. DIBATTISTE (the Executive), dated as of April 25, 2005 (the Agreement), is made and entered into by ChoicePoint and Executive as of the 31st day of January,
2008, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and the respective benefits to the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged.

The Agreement is amended as follows:

1.

Subparagraph (a) of Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the date April 24, 2008 therefrom and replacing it
with the date April 24, 2009.

2.

The remaining provision of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Amendment the day and year first above referenced.



CHOICEPOINT INC.By:

/s/ Steven W. SurbaughChief Administrative Officer/s/ Carol A. DiBattisteCarol A. DiBattiste
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Xinyinhai Technology, Ltd. (the Company) certify that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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 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.  May 15, 2008 /s/ Tian Ling Tian Ling (Chief Executive Officer)    /s/ Du Song Du Song (Chief Financial Officer)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0059. WILLIS INSURANCE SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC. et al. v.

BRENT HARTMAN, et al.

Plaintiffs Brent Hartman and Danielle Maxey, along with their new employer

Alliant Insurance Service, Inc., filed a civil action against their old employer Willis

Insurance Services of Georgia, Inc. and Willis of Tennessee, Inc. (collectively

referred to as “Willis”). The plaintiffs raised claims for declaratory and injunctive

relief and sought to bar Willis from enforcing the non-solicitation provisions of their

employment agreements. After a comprehensive hearing and review of the record,

the superior court granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs. Although the order is

styled as granting a “Temporary Restraining Order,” it does not include a date on

which it will no longer be in effect. Willisthen filed this application for discretionary

appeal.

Where, as here, a trial court enters a restraining order after a lengthy adversary

hearing and the order grants all of the relief sought and does not expire within 30

days, “the trial court’s order is equivalent to an interlocutory injunction.” Glynn

County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Haller, 273 Ga. 649, 649-650 (2) (543 SE2d 699)

(2001). The grant or denial of an interlocutory injunction is directly appealable under

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4). See Haygood v. Tilley, 295 Ga. App. 90, 90 n.1 (670 SE2d

800) (2008). This Court will grant an otherwise timely application for discretionary

appeal if the lower court’s order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). 

Accordingly, this application is hereby GRANTED, and the applicants shall

have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal with the trial court

if they have not already done so. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (g). The clerk of the trial court

August 20, 2018
is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court

of Appeals. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/20/2018
STATE of Louisiana v. Blaise GRAVOIS

NO. 2019-KK-0570

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Lissette REEVES, Appellant, v. Jason REEVES, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-5108

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS JOHN WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MARYANNE BREWER, A/C; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35736

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00615-JLR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Carlos John Williams, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and

Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

affirm.

FILED

FEB 26 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Because the district court dismissed Williams’ action on the merits and not

for failure to pay the filing fee, we reject Williams’ contention regarding the filing

fee, which is the only issue he raises in his Opening Brief.

Williams’ motion for prospective relief seeking immediate transfer,

miscellaneous injunctive relief, and appointment of a guardian ad litem, filed on

January 9, 2015, and related motion for a prompt ruling, filed on February 2, 2015,

are denied because we do not consider allegations raised for the first time on

appeal.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-35736
ex109.htm


                                                                          
Director Fee
Arrangements                                                                          Exhibit
10.9

    


    


      Each
non-employee director of Capitol Federal Financial (the "Company") receives an
annual retainer, paid monthly, of $22,000 for his or her service on the board of
directors of Capitol Federal Savings Bank (the "Bank") and $22,000 for his or
her service on the Company's board of directors ($44,000 in total).


      


      John B.
Dicus, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer and Morris
J. Huey, II, Executive Vice President and Chief Lending Officer, are each paid
$12,000 by the Bank and $12,000 by the Company ($24,000 in total) for their
service as directors of the Bank and Company.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MATTHEW WAYNE, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-06994-PJH 

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION 

Re: Dkt. No. 145 

 Before the court is plaintiff’s administrative motion seeking an extension of time for 

the briefing and hearing on defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. See Dkt. 

145. Defendants have filed a response to the administrative motion, and state that they 

do “not necessarily oppose a short enlargement of time.” Dkt. 148 at 1. 

 Because plaintiff’s proposed schedule would result in less than 120 days between 

the summary judgment hearing and the start of trial, in violation of this court’s standing 

order on civil cases, the court disapproves of plaintiff’s proposed deadlines. Accordingly, 

while the court GRANTS in part plaintiff’s motion, it will not adopt plaintiff’s proposed 

schedule. Instead, the schedule shall be as follows: 

 Plaintiff’s MSJ opposition due: October 20, 2022

 Defendants’ MSJ reply due: October 27, 2022

 MSJ hearing date: November 10, 2022

 The current dates for the pretrial conference and for trial remain in place. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 2, 2022 

 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-06994-PJH Document 149 Filed 09/02/22 Page 1 of 1