alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 1 to the MBIA Inc. Annual and Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.52 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 2002 MBIA INC. ANNUAL AND LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 This AMENDMENT NO.1 to the 2002 MBIA, INC. ANNUAL AND LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Plan”), is hereby adopted by MBIA Inc., effective as of February 10, 2004. Capitalized terms used, but not defined,
herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Plan. 
  
 WHEREAS, the Plan was established to enable the Company and its Subsidiaries to attract, retain, motivate and reward the best qualified executive officers and key employees by providing them with the opportunity to earn competitive
compensation directly linked to the Company’s performance; 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 4(d) of the Plan provides that the Committee may grant annual and long-term incentive awards without regard to the other generally applicable provisions of the Plan to a Participant who will not be a Covered Employee for
the year in which the amount paid under such award would be deductible by the Company for federal income tax purposes (an “Unrestricted Participant”) so long as such awards do not exceed the maximum limits otherwise specified in the
Plan; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that it is in the
best interests of the Company to be able to grant annual and long-term equity-based awards to one or more Unrestricted Participants in amounts that exceed the otherwise applicable dollar limits (but not share limits) under the Plan; 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 7(b) of the Plan authorizes the Committee to amend the Plan;

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended, effective as of the
date hereof, as follows: 
  
 Section 4(d) of the Plan is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 “Affirmative Discretion. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Plan to the contrary (including, without limitation, the maximum amounts payable under Section 4(b)), but subject to the maximum number of shares available for
issuance under Section 6 of the Plan, (i) the Committee shall have the right, in its discretion, to grant any annual or long-term bonus in cash, in shares of the Company’s Common Stock or in any combination thereof to any Participant who is not
a Covered Employee for the year in which the amount paid would ordinarily be deductible by the Company for federal income tax purposes, based on individual performance or any other criteria that the Committee deems 







 appropriate and (ii) in connection with the hiring of any person who is or becomes a Covered Employee,
the Committee may provide for a minimum bonus amount in any Performance Period, regardless of whether performance objectives are attained.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, a duly authorized officer of MBIA Inc. has caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan, to be executed as the date written above.

  
  

			
	MBIA INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kevin Silva

	 	 	

		
	Its:	 	 Vice President

	 	 	



  
  
  

 2
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714256
<NAME>             MB Software Corporation
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         1119025
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3136549
<ALLOWANCES>                                     80381
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4406987
<PP&E>                                          303336
<DEPRECIATION>                                  163349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5967838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4478110
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         67885
<OTHER-SE>                                      101862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5967838
<SALES>                                        2354823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2425476
<CGS>                                           339390
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   339390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1697297
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               95079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    392161
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.006
        

</TABLE>
Terry ROBBINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7001.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### PRINCE LINE, Limited, Respondent, v. JOHN C. SEAGER CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by the Prince Line, Limited, against the John C. Seager Company. L. Ullo, for appellant. J. M. Woolsey, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### Pugh *v.*Hardman, *et al.*

*Bill for Sale for Partition.*

(Decided June 13, 1907.

44 South. 389.)

*Appeal; Assignment of Error; Form.*— An assignment of error made on a separate sheet of paper attached to the upper edge of a page of the transcript is not an assignment of error within the rule, and will not’be considered.

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. Alfred H. Benners.

From a decree granting to James U. Hardman and others an order for a sale for partition, Pugh, as guardian of one of the respondents, appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

John C. Pugi-i, for appellant.

Counsel discusses assignments of error but does not discuss the point decided.

John B. Weakley, for appellee.

Counsel discusses the points raised by assignment of errors but does not discuss the point decided.

PER CURIAM.

The assignments of error are not made on the record, but on a separate piece of paper, and attached at the upper edge of such paper to a page of the transcript. This was held, in the case of *Hunter v. L.*& N. *R. R. Co.,*150 Ala. 43 South. 802, not to be an assignment of errors on the record. On the authority of that case, the present case must be affirmed for want of assignment of errors.

A (firmed.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Ruminant Diseases and Immunology Research: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Welcome to our website


Mission


People Bickel, Kathryn Billing, Sheila Boatwright, Jr, William Casas, Eduardo Chriswell, Bradley Dassanayake, Rohana Federico, Patricia Goldkamp, Anna Holthausen, David Jones, Jennifer Kaplan, Bryan Ma, Hao Nielsen, Daniel Nyholm, Tera Porter, Tracy Sacco, Randy Sarlo Davila, Kaitlyn Tatum, Fred Tungesvick, Larissa Zimmerman, Duane


Midwest Area   eduardo.casas@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1916 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Amino-1-[2,6-dichloro-4- 

(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-[(1R,S)–(trifluoromethyl)-sulfiny ]-1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. HULSHOF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 5-Amino-1-[2,6-dichloro4- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-[(1R,S)–(trifluoromethyl)- 

sulfiny ]-1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 5-AMINO-1-[2,6-DICHLORO-4- 

4 (TRIFLUOROMETHYL)PHENYL]-4-[(1R,S)– 

5 (TRIFLUOROMETHYL)-SULFINYL]-1H-PYR6 AZOLE-3-CARBONITRILE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 
2 

•HR 1916 IH 

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.61 5-Amino-1-[2,6-dichloro-4- 

(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4- 

[(1R,S)–(trifluoromethyl)- 

sulfinyl]-1H-pyrazole-3- 

carbonitrile (CAS No. 

120068–37–3) (provided for 

in subheading 2933.19.37) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### KNICKERBOCKER TRUST CO. v. MILLER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 23, 1912.)

Action by the Knickerbocker Trust Company against Andrew Miller. No opinion. Motion granted. Settle order on notice. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 989.
| (1) | the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                              |   |                                                                  |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   |                                                                  |   |
| Date:  November 8, 2011 | By:    |  /s/ Georges Benarroch                                           |   |
|                              |   | Georges Benarroch                                                     |   |
|                              |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                              |   |                                                                  |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Cyrus, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered August 3, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

No objection was registered with respect to the portions of the court’s charge of which defendant now complains and, therefore, he has failed to preserve the issues for appellate review *(People v Gonzales,*56 NY2d 1001). In any event, although the trial court improperly referred to “wavered” minds in instructing the jury with respect to reasonable doubt, examination of the charge as a whole discloses that the court conveyed the correct rule of law to the jury *(People v Stevenson,*104 AD2d 835, 836). Moreover, the court did not prejudicially or unduly prolong its charge with respect to defendant’s right to remain silent at trial. Finally, since the People’s case was not based solely on circumstantial evidence, no special instruction with respect thereto was required (Pe*ople v Ruiz,*52 NY2d 929, 930). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Fritz L. LaPorte, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MAKO Surgical Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     March 31, 2008 /s/ Fritz L. LaPorte   Fritz L. LaPorte   Senior Vice President of Finance and
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60179

JOSE SANTOS MEJIA, also known as Jose Santos Zavala

- Mejia,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Our prior opinion, Mejia v. Sessions , 881 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2018), is

withdrawn, and a revised opinion will be forthcoming. United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

June 20 , 2018

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
#### HURLEY, Appellant,' v. WARDELL, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Robert J. Hurley against Winant B. Wardell. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Introduction Research: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Main Menu
                        Home page
                                    About the Plant Introduction Station
                                    Crops
                                    Entomology
                                    Facilities
                                    Pathology
                                    Seed Storage
                                    Seed Viability
                                    Annual Reports
                                    Ash Conservation ProjectSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Ames, Iowa Plant Introduction Research Home Seed Storage Program







Mainheadline bar  Seed Storage LogoThe Seed Storage team is responsible for:Filling seed orders.Storing regeneration sample.Storing newly received original samples.Imaging original samples.Updating inventory counts.Completing taxonomic re-identifications, PI number assignments and updating seed storage labeling.Serving as resources persons to the curatorial teams.Working with the GRIN database to insure accession inventory information accuracy.Preparing backup orders to be sent to NCGRP.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 17.5


RESIGNATION  OF lARRY  SHUSMAN AS CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER OF  NATIONAL  ENERGY
SERVICES COMPANY, INC., a Nevada Corporation



I, Larry Shusman,  hereby resign all my capacities as Chief Financial Officer of
NATIONAL ENERGY SERVICES  COMPANY,  INC., a Nevada  Corporation  (the "Company")
effective  February 20, 2004. My  resignation  is not because of a  disagreement
with the Company on any matter relating to the Company's operations, policies or
practices.  Further, I release the Company from any and all obligations they may
have to me as well as from any and all  claims  (asserted  or not  asserted)  to
date.




/s/  Larry Shusman                                     2/7/05
------------------------------------------      --------------------------------
 Larry Shusman                                           Date
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

 FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

DATA RESEARCH AND HANDLING, INC., )

d/b/a WORKFORCE RELO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) No. 1:15 CV 336

)

UPSTATE ALLIANCE OF REALTORS, INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. ) 

O R D E R

Plaintiff has moved to remand this cause to the Allen Superior Court of the State

of Indiana. (DE # 7.) The parties appear to agree that the Clerk of the Allen Superior

Court prematurely mailed out an unapproved amended complaint and summonses to

defendants. Under 28 U.SC. § 1446(b), the receipt of those documents triggered a 30-day

window of time in which defendants could remove the case to federal court. The parties

appear to agree that defendants removed this case in accordance with Section 1446(b),

despite the fact that the amended complaint and summonses should not have been

mailed in the first place. However, defendants do not contest the appropriateness of

remand, so plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. (DE # 7.)

Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees for the costs associated with filing the motion

to remand. Such an award is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) when “the removing

party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Lott v. Pfizer, Inc., 492

F.3d 789, 791 (7th Cir. 2007). However, in this case defendants acted reasonably. As all

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00336-JTM-SLC document 11 filed 09/08/16 page 1 of 2
the parties appear to agree, defendants’ removal was technically proper under federal

law. That the removal was triggered, prematurely, by an alleged error of the state court

clerk does not render defendants’ actions objectively unreasonable. Accordingly, the

request for attorneys’ fees is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Date: September 8, 2016

 s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00336-JTM-SLC document 11 filed 09/08/16 page 2 of 2