alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment Number One to the Unicom Corporation Deferred Compensation Unit Plan



 Exhibit 10.16 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE 
 UNICOM CORPORATION 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION UNIT PLAN 
 (as amended through October 25, 1995) 
 WHEREAS, Unicom Corporation, an Illinois corporation (“Unicom”), heretofore adopted and maintained the Unicom Corporation Deferred Compensation Unit Plan, as amended through October 25, 1995 (the “Plan”);

 WHEREAS, Exelon Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), has succeeded to the rights and obligations of
Unicom, including the rights and obligations of Unicom under the terms of the Plan; 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6 of the
Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has retained the power to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the
Board has authorized the amendment of the Plan to bring the Plan into compliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). 
 NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 6 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of
January 1, 2008, by adding the following new Section 8 thereto: 
 (8) Section 409A. This Plan is intended to comply
with the provisions of Section 409A of the Code, and shall be interpreted and construed accordingly, and the timing of all payments under the Plan shall be modified as necessary to comply therewith. As permitted under Section 409A of the
Code, the payment of current compensation units and retirement compensation units concurrently with the payment of cash dividends on shares of the Company’s Common Stock is intended to constitute the payment of earnings pursuant to a fixed
schedule during the holder’s employment, in the case of current compensation units, and during 








 
the holder’s life, in the case of retirement compensation units. To the extent the Company determines that, for purposes of Section 409A of the
Code, retirement compensation units constitute the payment of a deferred compensation benefit that is payable upon the holder’s separation from service, then any retirement compensation units that would be payable to a “specified
employee,” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code, during the six-month period beginning on such employee’s separation from service shall be delayed and paid to such employee within 30 days after the earlier to occur of
(i) the end of such six-month period or (ii) the date of the employee’s death. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized agent on this                  day of
                        , 2008. 
  

			
	EXELON CORPORATION
		
	By	 	  



  

 2
Ignacio JACOBO, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-9705.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, denied.
** **

**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, John S. HendersonIV, certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dynastar Holdings, Inc.

 

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

 

3.      Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

 

4.      Iam responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and have;

 

(a)      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)      Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under yoursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(d)      Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the fourth quarterof the registrant’s 2011 fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.      Ihave disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,****summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)      Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Michel THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1699

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE**

 

**OFFICEROF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND PARTNERS, LP**

 

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with thereport on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2008 ofHiland Partners, LP (the “Company”) and filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph L. Griffin, ChiefExecutive Officer and President of Hiland Partners GP, LLC, the general partnerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 10,  2008 | /s/ Joseph L. Griffin                  |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                          | Joseph L. Griffin                      |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer  and President |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 78 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 78

  Notifying the President of the United States of the election of the 
                        Secretary of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 1, 2021

 Mr. Schumer submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Notifying the President of the United States of the election of the 
                        Secretary of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the President of the United States be notified of 
the election of the Honorable Sonceria Ann Berry as Secretary of the 
Senate.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2018251EN.01000501.xml

| 18.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/5

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 13 July 2018

appointing one alternate member of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality for Greece

(2018/C 251/04)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 26 May 2016 (2), the Council appointed 18 members and 17 alternate members of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the period from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 26 May 2016 (2), the Council appointed 18 members and 17 alternate members of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the period from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2019.

2

| (2) | The government of Greece has submitted one nomination for a post of alternate member to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The government of Greece has submitted one nomination for a post of alternate member to be filled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as alternate member of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality for Greece for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 31 May 2019:

GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Greece | | Mr Dimitrios PLATIS |

Country

Members

Alternates

Greece

Mr Dimitrios PLATIS

Article 2

The Council shall appoint members and alternate members who have not yet been nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 13 July 2018.

For the Council

The President

H. LÖGER

---

(1)  OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 9.

1

(2)  Council Decision of 26 May 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality (OJ C 199, 4.6.2016, p. 5).

2

---
David Donnell SOLES v. STATE

CR-16-0549

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Elisames HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1001

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 54

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-55 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
#### Juana Cortez REYES, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Faustino Gonzalez Del Valle and as Next Friend of Christopher Gonzales Reyes and Alexandra Gonzalez Reyes; Margarita Olarte Hernandez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Julian Rubio Palacios, as Temporary Guardian of the Estate of Maria Del Carmen Rubio Olarte, NCM, as as Next Friend of Maria Del Carmen Rubio Olarte, Julio Rubio Olarte, Arturo Rubio Olarte, Roberto Rubioi Olarte, Gil Ruio Olarte, Debora Ruio Olarte, David Rubioi Olarte, Francisco Javier Rubio Olarte and Valeria Monteserrat Rubio Olarte; Elvira Hernandez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Hilario Corona Uribe, and as Next Friend of Maria Catalina Corona Hernandez, Laura Corona Hernandez, Gloria Isabel Corona Hernandez and Hilario Corona Hernandez; Anita Quiroz Lapa, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Julian Flores Quiroz; Roque Guerrero Chavez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Maria Del Carmen Salas Palacios and as next Friend of Erika Guerrero Salas, Sergio Guerrero Salas and Mireya Guerrero Salas; Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants, Armando Gonzalez Del VALLE; Andrea Olvera Moreno; Basilio Leal Hurtado; Estate of Eliazar Olvera; Sixta Del Valle Hernandez; Eleocadio Gonzalez; Reyna Palacios Juarez; Luis Flores Cordova, Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dagoberto AGUILAR; et al., Defendants, Redland Insurance Company; Acceptance Casualty Insurance Co., Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.

No. 03-40768.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 5, 2004.

Peter M. Kelly, Hogan *&*Hogan, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellants/Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants/Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellants.

*240Aloysius Peter Thaddeus, Thaddeus Law Office, McAllen, TX, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

We affirm the judgment of the district court based on the reasons advanced in its order of April 18, 2002.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Craig Legwaine WILLIAMS Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Carmine MARCENO, Sheriff of Lee County Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1937

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
# L_2018152EN.01006002.xml

| 15.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 152/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 152/60

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/706 of 14 May 2018 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 118 I of 14 May 2018
  )

On page 4, Annex, column ‘Identifying information’, in entries 162 and 163, the addresses are deleted.

---
Tracy D. VAN DYKE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9863.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
[E&Y Logo]******Ernst & Young LLP**Phone: (404) 8748300 Suite 1000 www.ey.com 55 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30308  **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**To the Board of Directors: We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that ZC Sterling Insurance Agency, Inc. (`the Company' or `ZCSIA') complied with certain servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the ZC Sterling Integrated Product Solution (ZIPS) Hazard Insurance Outsourcing Platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. The Company has determined that only certain servicing criteria Item 1122 (d) (1) (iv), Item 1122 (d) (2) (vi), Item 1122 (d) (4) (xi), Item 1122 (d) (4) (xii), and Item 1122 (d) (4) (xiii) are applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the Platform covered by this report. See Appendix A of management's assertion for the Platform and Servicers covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public  Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the Platform. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination  on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ Ernst & Young LLP February 14, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7899

JOE DAVID BARNARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BILLY JOE DURHAM, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-3321-6-20BI) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe David Barnard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joe David Barnard appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Barnard v. Durham , No. CA-03-3321-6-20BI (D.S.C. Nov. 24, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1

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

29

30

31

32

BRIAN P. BERSON, ESQ.

1000 Brannan St., Suite 488

San Francisco, CA 94103

California State Bar No. 130249

brian@bersonlaw.net

Telephone No.:(415)788-2707

Facsimile No.:(415)522-5206

Counsel for Defendant DONNA MARR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

) No. CR-4-16-70790

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND 

) [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

vs. ) HEARING ON STATUS OF

) INDICTMENT

DONNA MARR, ) 

Defendant. ) 

)

STIPULATION

 This matter is currently set on August 18, 2016 for status of

indictment. The parties jointly request that this matter be 

continued to September 8, 2016, in order to allow counsel to 

further consider discovery materials. The parties agree that 

waiver of time for indictment or preliminary examination and under 

the Speedy Trial Act for effective preparation of counsel is 

appropriate.

 Respectfully Submitted,

Case 4:17-cr-00080-YGR Document 14 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

29

30

31

32

 Date: August 16, 2016 _/S/-Brian Berson_____

 BRIAN P. BERSON

 Attorney for Donna Marr

 

Date: August 16, 2016 _/S/-William Frentzen

 WILLIAM FRENTZEN

 Assistant United States Attorney

 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 

 For the reasons stated above, this matter will be continued 

from August 18, 2016 to September 8, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

 So ordered.

 

Dated:_____________ _______________________ 

THE HONORABLE KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

817/16

Case 4:17-cr-00080-YGR Document 14 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2
Sean BURNHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5018

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ALEXIS RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 542 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 10.7



August 14, 2007

Christopher O'Meara 
[Address]

RE:  Retention

Dear Chris,

We are offering you the following retention bonus to recognize your commitment to staying with Adaptec as we refocus our
business.  You will receive a retention bonus (subject to applicable withholdings) of six months of your current base pay rate based on
your sustained satisfactory performance.  Two months of the bonus will be paid on November 23, 2007 and four months will be paid on
February 29, 2008.

This retention bonus is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any Adaptec Incentive Plan (AIP) payment you are eligible to receive based
on the Plan document, or severance benefits you will receive as noted in your Employment Agreement.

If you voluntarily leave Adaptec's employment or are involuntarily terminated for cause prior to the date as of which a retention
bonus payment is due to be paid, you will not be entitled to receive that payment.   Cause is defined as any of the following: (1) A
deliberate or serious breach of your material duties as assigned by the Company; (2) Refusal or unwillingness to perform such duties;
or (3) Arrest or conviction of a felony, a serious violation of the law, or other crime involving moral turpitude, fraud, misappropriation of
funds, habitual insobriety or illegal drug use.

If you are involuntarily terminated due to a Change of Control as defined in the Company's 2004 Equity Incentive Plan
("Change of Control") or reduction in force, you will be entitled to receive both retention bonus payments, payable
immediately upon the termination of your employment.

The Company shall require any successor or assignee, in connection with any sale, transfer or other disposition of all or
substantially all of Adaptec's assets or business, whether by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise, expressly to assume and
agree to perform Adaptec's obligations under this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that Adaptec would be
required to perform if no such succession or assignment had taken place.  Adaptec will cover all of your legal expenses incurred by you
to enforce this Retention Agreement following a Change of Control, payable within ten (10) days of your submission of evidence of your
incurring such expenses as a result of a refusal to pay retention benefits under this Agreement.

The commitment of the Company under this agreement is not revocable.

Sincerely,



|/s/ Sundi Sundaresh    
|-----------------------
|Sundi Sundaresh        
|Chief Executive Officer