alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CNL-12.31.2014-EX 10(c)(10)






EXHIBIT 10(c)(10)




CLECO CORPORATION
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009
Amendment No. 3
(No New Participants)




Whereas, Cleco Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, most recently amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2009, and most recently amended effective October 28, 2011, which plan is intended to be a non-qualified deferred compensation arrangement structured in the form of a defined benefit plan (the “SERP”);


Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Company now desires to limit participation in the SERP;


Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that no new participants shall be added to the SERP on or after August 1, 2014, but that in all other respects the terms of the SERP shall be ratified and confirmed; and


Further Resolved, that the Chief Executive Officer, the Senior Vice President (“SVP”) - Chief Financial Officer, the SVP - Corporate Services & Information Technology, and the SVP - General Counsel & Director - Regulatory Compliance (each an “Authorized Officer”), acting singly, are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to take any and all actions which they, in their sole discretion, shall deem necessary or advisable in order to accomplish the closure of the SERP as contemplated herein; and


Further Resolved, that each Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and empowered to take any and all actions to prepare, execute and file such documents, to enter into such agreements with such persons and to take any and all other actions which he or she, in his or her sole and absolute discretion, shall deem necessary or advisable in connection with the foregoing resolutions; and


Further Resolved, that all actions heretofore taken by any Authorized Officer with respect to the closure or the modification of the SERP, that would have been authorized by these resolutions, if taken after their adoption, are hereby ratified and confirmed.


This Amendment No. 3 was approved by the Board of Directors of Cleco Corporation on July 24, 2014, to be effective as of the date set forth herein.


Cleco Corporation


By:     /s/  Judy P. Miller            


Its: Senior Vice President, Corporate Services


Date: July 24, 2014
#### Donna Sampson, Respondent, v Philip L. Glazer, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court *832Act for upward modification of child support, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Stanger, J.), dated June 1, 1983, which denied appellant’s application for counsel fees.

Order affirmed, with costs.

In a child support proceeding brought pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the court, in its discretion, may award counsel fees to the attorney representing the person who is claiming a right to support on behalf of the child (Family Ct Act § 438; *Carter v Carter,*65 AD2d 765; *Matter of Carole K. u Arnold K.,*87 Misc 2d 547). As with awards of counsel fees made pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (b), the court will base its decision primarily upon both parties’ ability to pay, the nature and extent of the services required to deal with the support dispute, and the reasonableness of their performance under the circumstances *(Matter of Barnes v Barnes,*54 AD2d 963; *McCann v Guterl,*100 AD2d 577). Under appropriate circumstances, to be determined on a case by case basis, the court may consider whether the more financially secure litigant is, in fact, merely waging a campaign of legal harassment against the more needy party *(see, Ardito v Ardito,*97 AD2d 830).

In the instant case, appellant was not acting to protect the child’s right to support and accordingly may not recover counsel fees. In any event, our review of the facts at bar indicates that appellant has failed to establish that he is financially hard-pressed and that petitioner is better able to pay his legal fees. Moreover, we find that petitioner’s actions do not constitute a campaign of legal harassment. Petitioner appeared *pro se*throughout the Family Court proceedings. She voluntarily withdrew her first petition for upward modification of child support, brought on behalf of her infant daughter. She apparently brought the instant proceeding in good faith after she learned of a new ruling which she reasonably believed provided a basis for her claim. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Thompson, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 187

To prohibit the operation during a calendar year of the final rule issued 

by the Secretary of Agriculture to establish standards for the designation 

of minimal-risk regions for the introduction of bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy into the United States, including designation of Canada 

as a minimal-risk region, unless United States access to major markets 

for United States exports of cattle and beef products is equivalent or 

better than the access status accorded such exports as of January 1, 

2003. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005

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

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL

To prohibit the operation during a calendar year of the 

final rule issued by the Secretary of Agriculture to establish standards for the designation of minimal-risk regions 

for the introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

into the United States, including designation of Canada 

as a minimal-risk region, unless United States access 

to major markets for United States exports of cattle 

and beef products is equivalent or better than the access 

status accorded such exports as of January 1, 2003.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 187 IH 

1 SECTION 1. ANNUAL CONDITION ON APPLICATION OF 

2 FINAL RULE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT 

3 OF MINIMAL-RISK REGIONS, INCLUDING CAN4 ADA, FOR BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

5 ENCEPHALOPATHY. 

6 (a) IMPOSITION OF CONDITION.—The final rule 

7 issued by the Secretary of Agriculture on January 4, 

8 2005, amending parts 93, 94, 95, and 96 of title 9 of 

9 the Code of Federal Regulations to establish standards for 

10 the designation of minimal-risk regions for the introduc11 tion of bovine spongiform encephalopathy into the United 

12 States, to provide for the importation of certain 

13 ruminants, ruminant products, and ruminant byproducts 

14 from such minimal-risk regions, and to designate Canada 

15 as a minimal-risk region shall not apply during a calendar 

16 year unless the United States Trade Representative cer17 tifies to Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture that 

18 the status of United States access during that calendar 

19 year to the 10 historical major markets for United States 

20 exports of ruminants, ruminant products, and ruminant 

21 byproducts is equivalent or better than the access status 

22 accorded to United States exports of ruminants, ruminant 

23 products, and ruminant byproducts to those markets as 

24 of January 1, 2003. 

25 (b) IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR EXPORT MAR26 KETS.—To assist the United States Trade Representative 
3

•HR 187 IH 

1 in making the certification required by subsection (a), the 

2 Secretary of Commerce shall identify the 10 historical 

3 major markets for United States exports of ruminants, ru4 minant products, and ruminant byproducts using statis5 tics regarding the quantity of United States exports of 

6 ruminants, ruminant products, and ruminant byproducts 

7 to foreign countries during 2003.

Æ
#### Christy WASHINGTON, Brandi Salazar, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronnie WILLIAMS, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Newnan, Colleen Hayes, in her individual capacity and in her capacity as the Director of Human Resources for the City of Newnan, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-12115.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 1, 2006.

John Lee Quinn, Nalcamura, Quinn & Walls, LLP, Decatur, GA, for Appellants.

Colleen Hayes, John Lewis Sapp, Elar-bee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP, Amy S. Auffant, Elarbee Thompson & Trapnell, Atlanta, GA, for Appellee.

*971Before ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable William H. Albritton, III, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful review of the relevant parts of the record, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We note that appellants have all settled with Chief Williams, thus leaving at issue on appeal only the appellants’ hostile environment claim against the City, and plaintiff Washington’s Georgia RICO claim against Hayes. With respect to the former, the district court concluded that neither the City Manager, Bolin, nor Hayes, the Human Resources Director, was a policymaker, and that the only policymaker was the City Council itself. That finding is not challenged on appeal. With respect to the City Council, we conclude that there is simply no evidence that any member of City Council was aware of a hostile environment, and that the district court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the City.

We also conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Hayes with respect to plaintiff Washington’s Georgia RICO claim. In this regard, we note that plaintiff Washington abandoned in the district court her conspiracy claim against Hayes and Chief Williams, and pursues this RICO claim only against Hayes. The district court concluded that plaintiff Washington had failed to adduce evidence to create a genuine issue of fact with respect to the “direct injury” requirement of the Georgia law. Oui’ review of the record persuades us that the district court was correct.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and 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 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 the registrant and have: |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |   May 6, 2010 |   |  /s/ Doug Carpenter                  |   |
|--------|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |               |   | C. Douglas Carpenter                      |   |
|   |               |   | Senior Vice President, Secretary, and CFO |   |

----
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2140 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of N,N-dimethyl-2[3-(4,6- 

dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl ]-4-formylaminobenzamide 

(Foramsulfuron), methyl 4-iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2- 

yl)ureidosul fonyl]benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosulfuron), and application 

adjuvants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

Mr. BERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Mixtures of N,N-dimethyl-2[3-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)ureidosulfonyl ]- 

4-formylaminobenzamide (Foramsulfuron), methyl 4- 

iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)ureidosul 

fonyl]benzoate, sodium salt (Iodosulfuron), and application adjuvants. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2140 IH 

1 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF N,N-DIMETHYL-2[3-(4,6- 

2 DIMETHOXYPYRIMIDIN-2- 

3 YL)UREIDOSULFONYL]-4- 

4 FORMYLAMINOBENZAMIDE 

5 (FORAMSULFURON), METHYL 4-IODO-2-[3-(4- 

6 METHOXY-6-METHYL-1,3,5-TRIAZIN-2- 

7 YL)UREIDOSULFONYL]BENZOATE, SODIUM 

8 SALT (IODOSULFURON), AND APPLICATION 

9 ADJUVANTS. 

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

11 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

12 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

13 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.06.72 Mixtures of N,N-dimethyl2[3-(4,6- 

dimethoxypyrimidin-2- 

yl)ureidosulfonyl]-4- 

formylaminobenzamide 

(Foramsulfuron) (CAS No. 

173159–57–4), methyl 4- 

iodo-2-[3-(4-methoxy-6- 

methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2- 

yl)ureidosulfonyl]benzoate, 

sodium salt (Iodosulfuron) 

(CAS No. 144550–36–7) 

and application adjuvants 

(provided for in subheading 

3808.30.15) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

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

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

17 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
# C_2008119EN.01000101.xml

| 16.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5069 — Tata Motors/Jaguar/Land Rover)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 119/01)

On 25 April 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5069. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5069. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1840

To suspend temporarily the duty on 5,5-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4–

20alkylthio)methyl]-2-hydroxy-2-oxo-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorinane, ammonium salt and 2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4–20alkylthio)methyl]-3-hydroxy 

proply phosphate, di-ammonium salt and Di-[2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4–

20alkylthio)methyl]]-3-hydroxy proply phosphate, ammonium salt and 

2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4–20alkylthio)methyl]-1,3-di-

(dihydrogenphosphate)-propane, tetra-ammonium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on 5,5-bis[(y,wperfluoroC4–20alkylthio)methyl]-2-hydroxy-2-oxo-1,3,2-

dioxaphosphorinane, ammonium salt and 2,2-bis[(y,wperfluoroC4–20alkylthio)methyl]-3-hydroxy proply phosphate, di-ammonium salt and Di-[2,2-bis[(y,wperfluoroC4–20alkylthio)methyl]]-3-hydroxy proply phosphate, ammonium salt and 2,2-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4–

20alkylthio)methyl]-1,3-di-(dihydrogenphosphate)-propane, tetra-ammonium salt.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1840 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 5,5-BIS[(Y,W2 PERFLUOROC4–20ALKYLTHIO)METHYL]-2-HY3 DROXY-2-OXO-1,3,2-DIOXAPHOSPHORINANE, 

4 AMMONIUM SALT AND 2,2-BIS[(Y,W5 PERFLUOROC4–20ALKYLTHIO)METHYL]-3-HY6 DROXY PROPLY PHOSPHATE, DI-AMMONIUM 

7 SALT AND DI-[2,2-BIS[(Y,W-PERFLUOROC4–

8 20ALKYLTHIO)METHYL]]-3-HYDROXY PROPLY 

9 PHOSPHATE, AMMONIUM SALT AND 2,2-

10 BIS[(Y,W-PERFLUOROC4–

11 20ALKYLTHIO)METHYL]-1,3-DI12 (DIHYDROGENPHOSPHATE)-PROPANE, 

13 TETRA-AMMONIUM SALT. 

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

15 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

16 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

17 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.38.43 5,5-bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4–

20alkylthio)methyl]-2-hydroxy-2-oxo-1,3,2-

dioxaphosphorinane, ammonium salt and 2,2-bis[(y,wperfluoroC4–

20alkylthio)methyl]-3-hydroxy proply phosphate, diammonium salt and Di-[2,2-

bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4–

20alkylthio)methyl]]-3-hydroxy proply phosphate, ammonium salt and 2,2-

bis[(y,w-perfluoroC4–

20alkylthio)methyl]-1,3-di-

(dihydrogenphosphate)-propane, tetra-ammonium salt 

(provided for in subheading 

3809.92.50) ......................... Free No Change No Change On or Before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
3

•HR 1840 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

Hammond Division

AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 

v. Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-220 JVB

STEVEN GREER, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

James Martin entered on October 27, 2014 (DE 98). For reasons fully explained in the report,

Judge Martin recommends that the Court dismiss Defendant Angela Bowman from the case

without prejudice.

Ms. Bowman was notified that she had fourteen days within which to file objections to

the recommendation. More than fourteen days have passed without any objections having been

filed. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Martin’s report and recommendation and orders that

Defendant Angela Bowman is DISMISSED from the case without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED on November 14, 2014.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

United States District Judge
[Nos. 19798-7-II; 19799-5-II.

Division Two.

August 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Lasamial Varnell Reed, *Respondent.*The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Frank Shannon Bellue, *Respondent.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Pierce County, Nos. 95-1-02369-1 and 95-1-02371-3, Donald H. Thompson, J., entered July 12, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Armstrong, JJ.
EX-10.101



 Exhibit 10.101 

CONFIDENTIAL 
 Osmose

 EXECUTIVE INCOME SUMMARY 

Name: Paul Goydan, President, Osmose, Inc. 
  

									
	 Year: 2013
		Base:		$	350,000	  		
			Mg’t. Fee:		$	 737,929	  		(Final fee reconciliation and payment to follow audited financial statements)
		  		  	  
	  
	 	  	
			Total		$	1,087,929	  		

 Basis of Management Fee: 2.15% of the Operating profit (or loss) contributed by the following profit centers (and any
new Osmose, Inc. profit centers) and shown on the 2013 Summary of Profit Centers and Subsidiaries: U.S. Wood Preservative Group, Wood Protection LLC, Timber Specialties, Co., Central America, Brazil, Chile, Europe, Australasia and Asia. Fee basis
will adjusted as in the past for relevant extraordinary expenses and claims. See attached. A weighted average cost of capital factor will apply to new acquisitions. 

Total Compensation Range: 
  

			
	Minimum: $ 714.000		Second Tier Point: $ 1,020,000

  
  

 

											
	Year: 2014		 	Base:	  		$	13,461.54	  		per pay period (biweekly)

 Basis of Management Fee: 2.15% of the Operating profit (or loss) contributed by the following profit centers (and any
new Osmose, Inc. profit centers) and shown on the 2014 Summary of Profit Centers and Subsidiaries: U.S. Wood Preservative Group, Wood Protection LLC, Timber Specialties, Co., Central America, Brazil, Chile, Europe, Australasia and Asia. Fee basis
will adjusted as in the past for relevant extraordinary expenses and claims. A weighted average cost of capital factor will apply to new acquisitions. 

Your fee calculation will be prorated should the pending sale of Osmose, Inc. and its subsidiaries close in 2014. If a sale transaction completes in 2014,
your Management Fee will prorated based on the portion of the year Osmose, Inc., is owned by Osmose Holdings. Seasonal adjustments to the fee basis may be necessary. 

Total Compensation Range: 
  

			
	Minimum: $ Same as 2013  		Second Tier Point: Same as 2013

 Note 1: Osmose reserves the right to change base and bonus rates at any time based on changes to the employee’s assigned
duties and responsibilities, the employee’s performance and/or the company’s financial results. 
 Note 2: If total calculated compensation
exceeds the Second Tier Point in any year, the Fee will be adjusted by dividing calculated compensation over the Second Tier Point in half and adding result to the Second Tier Point for that year. 

Note 3: If an employee does not remain employed for the full year, base salary and any previous or current year management fee payments will be governed by
the terms of an executive employment agreement. 
  

									
	Accepted by:		 /s/ Paul Goydan
				Date:		 3/28/14

					
	Approved by:		  
				Date:
Bernardo MARTINAJ, petitioner, v. William LEE, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

No. 12-9636.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.