alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.1



THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REALPAGE, INC.
2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
(Amended and Restated Effective June 4, 2014)
This Third Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the RealPage, Inc. (the “Company”) 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended and restated June 4, 2014 (as amended, the “Plan”) is adopted as of February 18, 2016 (the “Date of Amendment”) by the Board.  All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them by the Plan.
Effective as of the Date of Amendment, the Plan is amended as follows:
1.    Annual Award to Outside Directors.  Sections 12(c) and 12(d) of the Plan are hereby amended and restated to read in their entirety as follows: 


(c)  Annual Award.  Each Outside Director will be automatically granted (an “Annual Award”) on April 1 of each year, beginning in 2016, a number of Shares of Restricted Stock determined by dividing (A) $160,000 by (B) the average of the Fair Market Value of a share on each of the 30 trading days immediately preceding (and excluding) the grant date, with the number of Shares rounded up to the nearest whole Share.  If the initial election or appointment of such Outside Director occurs on any date other than April 1st, such Outside Director will also be automatically granted a prorated portion of the Annual Award on the date of such election or appointment.  The prorated number of Shares of Restricted Stock shall be determined based on the number of complete months remaining between the date of election or appointment and the next April 1st. 


(d)  Terms.  The terms of each Award granted pursuant to this Section will be as follows:  The Restricted Stock awarded under each Annual Award will be issued for no cash consideration and will be forfeited and automatically transferred to and reacquired by the Company at no cost upon the date the Director ceases to provide services as a member of the Board (the “Forfeiture Provision”).  The Forfeiture Provision will lapse as to twenty-five percent (25%) of the Restricted Stock awarded in such Annual Award on the first day of each calendar quarter for four (4) calendar quarters beginning on the first day of the calendar quarter immediately following the date of grant, provided that the Participant continues to serve as a Director through such dates. 


2.    Miscellaneous.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without reference to principles of conflict of laws.










Exhibit 10.1





RealPage, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Third Amendment to the Plan on the date indicated below.


REALPAGE, INC.




By: /s/ Stephen Winn
Stephen Winn
Chief Executive Officer
Chairman of the Board


Date:  February 18, 2016
| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **16** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Chicago        Board of Trade (Patrick H. Arbor, Thomas R. Donovan)** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 4/6/93 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 3 |
|-------|--------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **17** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Managed        Futures Association** |
|--|-----------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 4/5/93 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 1 |
|-------|--------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **18** |
|-----------|--------|--------|

|  | **Chase        Manhattan Bank N.A.** |
|--|---------------------------------------|

| DATE: | 4/21/93 | FR        PAGE: | N/A | PAGES: | 3 |
|-------|---------|------------------|-----|--------|---|

|  | **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
    Previous
Next
Last
No. 286.

#### Chadick *v.*United States.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. B. D. Tarlton*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Reed, Assistant Attorney General Wideman,*and *Messrs. James W. Morris*and *Earl C. Crouter*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.4





May 9, 2016


Mr. Anthony D. Speer
2908 Passage Way
Midland, Texas 79705


Re:    Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated as of August 4, 2014, between CSI Compressco GP Inc. (the “Company”) and Anthony D. Speer


Dear Anthony:


In order to address the challenges that the Company continues to face with the downturn in the oil and gas market, we are implementing workweek schedule and wage reductions. 


Please sign below to confirm your consent and agreement that your current Base Salary set forth in Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement will be reduced by 10% from $190,000 to $171,000 (on an annual basis) effective May 14, 2016. You also understand that your incentive compensation under the CICP (as defined in the Employment Agreement) for 2016 will be based on your Base Salary in effect on December 31, 2016. You further acknowledge and agree that this salary reduction does not constitute “Good Reason” for termination as defined in Section 4.4 of the Employment Agreement.


In this very difficult market, we appreciate your continued commitment and hard work. 


Sincerely, 


/s/Bass C. Wallace, Jr.            
Bass C. Wallace, Jr., General Counsel


Agreed to and acknowledged 
on May 9, 2016 by:


/s/Anthony D. Speer                
Anthony D. Speer




CSI Compressco LP    P.O. Box 60760, Midland, TX 79711.
1-432-563-1170    www.csicompressco.com
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1633 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national 

celebration of after-school programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. GRAYSON, Ms. CORRINE BROWN

of Florida, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. HONDA, Mr. COURTNEY, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, and 

Ms. MCCOLLUM) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, 

a national celebration of after-school programs. 

Whereas high-quality after-school programs provide safe, 

challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences to 

help children and youth develop their social, emotional, 

physical, cultural and academic skills; 

Whereas high-quality after-school programs support working 

families by ensuring that their children are safe and productive after the regular school day ends; 

Whereas high-quality after-school programs build strong communities by involving the Nation’s students, parents, 

business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of the 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1633 IH 

Nation’s young people, thereby promoting positive relationships among children, youth, families, and adults; 

Whereas high-quality after-school programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of the Nation’s children; 

Whereas ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of 

after-school programs on October 21, 2010, promotes the 

critical importance of high-quality after-school programs 

in the lives of children, their families, and their communities; 

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children have parents who 

work outside the home, and 15,100,000 children have no 

place to go after school; and 

Whereas many after-school programs are struggling to keep 

their doors open and their lights on: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the goals and ideals of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a na3 tional celebration of after-school programs. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
# FCM Data November 2009
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. ARTHUR W. CUTTEN 

DOCKET NUMBER: GFA-7 

DATE: 1936 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUMMARY OF CASE 

NOTE: PROCEEDING BEFORE THE GRAIN FUTURES COMMISSION UNDER THE GRAIN FUTURES ACT 

GFA Docket No. 7 

Arthur W. Cutten, respondent 

Complaint and Notice of Hearing under the Grain Futures Act was issued by the 

Secretary on April 9, 1934, charging in 47 counts that during the years 1930 and 

1931 respondent conspired with various persons to conceal his position and 

trades on the Chicago Board of Trade in an attempt to manipulate the price of 

grain, that he made false reports, that he failed to report his trades, that he 

caused firms through which he traded to keep false records and make false 

reports, and that his short selling of a large volume of wheat futures during 

this period caused a decline in the price of wheat. 

A hearing in this matter began on May 14, 1934. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the 

Grain Futures Act was unconstitutional and the contention that the act was 

remedial and preventive, applying only to violations in progress and not to 

those completed in the past. 

On February 12, 1935, it was ordered that trading privileges on all contract 

markets be denied respondent for a period of two years. 

On February 26, 1935, a petition was filed in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in behalf of Arthur W. Cutten to set aside the 

order denying trading privileges. 

On November 25, 1935, the Circuit Court of Appeals announced its decision 

reversing the order of the Grain Futures Commission. The court found that the 

evidence was sufficient to support the findings of the commission, but that the 

findings did not support the order in that the section of the act relied upon 

did not apply to past violations; and that it was necessary for Congress to 

extend the application of the act by legislation rather than the courts to do so 

by judicial construction. 

On February 6, 1936, counsel for the Grain Futures Commission filed with the 

United States Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for a review of the decision 

reversing the order of the Grain Futures Commission. The writ of certiorari was 

granted on March 9, 1936. 

On May 18, 1936, the Supreme Court in an unanimous decision affirmed the 

ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that there was no 

ambiguity in the language of the act and that it was not the function of the 

court to enlarge the scope of a law to cover what was omitted, presumably, by 

inadvertence. 

LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Arnez DANIELS, a/k/a Tee, a/k/a Heck, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7599.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 29, 2012.

Decided: April 3, 2012.

Terrence Arnez Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Arnez Daniels appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Daniels,*No. 5:01-cr-00736-CMC-2 (D.S.C. Nov. 21, 2011). We deny Daniels’ motion to seal the opinion and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Annual Report of DG FastChannel, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual
period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 10, 2010

By:

/s/ SCOTT K. GINSBURG Scott K. Ginsburg Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 10, 2010

By:

/s/ OMAR A. CHOUCAIR Omar A. Choucair Chief Financial Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

d0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148540

IDA TOWNSHIP,

Plaintiff/Counter

- Defendant

- Appellee,

v SC: 148540

COA: 303595

Monroe CC: 09

- 027194

- CZ

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN MOTORSPORTS,

LLC, DARRIN FELKEY, and CHARLES

MUDGE,

Defendants/Counter

- Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

and

IDA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION,

Counter

- Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30251 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HANNIBAL X. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:02-CR-111-ALL-B

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Hannibal X. Brown has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Brown has filed a response and requested the appointment of substitute counsel. Our independent review of the brief, Brown’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appealNo. 04-30251 -2- is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Brown’s motion to appoint substitute counsel is DENIED.
Exhibit (j)(1)

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Prospectuses and Statements ofAdditional Information in Post-Effective Amendment No. 101 to the Registration Statement onForm N-1A of Fidelity Investment Trust: Fidelity International Discovery, Fidelity OverseasFund, Fidelity Canada Fund, Fidelity China Region Fund, Fidelity Emerging Markets Fund,Fidelity Europe Fund, Fidelity Japan Fund, Fidelity Japan Smaller Companies Fund, FidelityLatin America Fund, Fidelity Nordic Fund, Fidelity Pacific Basin Fund, and Fidelity SoutheastAsia Fund of our reports dated December 20, 2007 on the financial statements and financialhighlights included in the October 31, 2007 Annual Reports to Shareholders of the abovereferenced funds, which are also incorporated by reference into the Registration Statement.

We further consent to the references to our Firm under the headings "Financial Highlights" in theProspectuses and "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in the Statements ofAdditional Information.
Jane L. CREASON, petitioner, v. Puneet Kaur SINGH, et al.

No. 16-6317.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         115,410                 115,410
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,879,412               1,879,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,170                   1,170
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,878,242               1,878,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,879,412               1,879,412
<SALES>                                         49,009                  53,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      930                  12,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,365                  40,384
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,365                  40,384
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,365                  40,384
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
VANESSA G., petitioner, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES.

No. 15-1317.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Division denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-54938, No. 333-43090, No. 333-90725, No. 333-54936) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option Plan, 1999 Stock Option Plan, 1999 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, PaylinX Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan, and 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan of CyberSource Corporation of our report dated January 20, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of CyberSource Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2002. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Palo Alto, California 

March 24, 2003