alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

May 5, 2014 
 Personal and
Confidential 
 VIA HAND DELIVERY 

Mr. William R. Koehler 
 Dear Bill: 

This letter confirms our prior discussion to amend Section 3 of the Letter Agreement by and between you and KeyBank National Association dated
April 7, 2014 (the “Letter Agreement”), by adding the following new subsection (i) to the end thereof: 
  

	 	(i)	In addition to the foregoing, you will receive a payment equal to the value of the unvested balance in any of the retirement plans or programs described in Sections 3(f) or 3(g) that you otherwise would forfeit as a
result of your separation from Key. Payment of this amount will be made in a lump-sum with the first regularly scheduled payroll occurring after the Release becomes effective. 


Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given to them in the Letter Agreement. 

Except as expressly amended herein, the others terms and conditions of the Letter Agreement remain in full force and effect. 

If you agree to the amendment described in this letter, please sign and date this letter and return a copy to my attention. 

 

			
	Sincerely,
	
	KeyBank National Association
	
	 /s/ Craig Buffie

	Craig Buffie
	Chief Human Resources Officer


 AGREED TO this 6th day of May, 2014 

 

	
	 /s/ William R. Koehler

	William R. Koehler
In Cause No. 03-08-00021-CV, Ramirez appeals the order terminating her parental rights 1

and, in Cause No. 03-08-00150-CV, she appeals the trial court’sfinding that her appeal is frivolous.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00021-CV

NO. 03-08-00150-CV

Monica Ramirez, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCCULLOCH COUNTY, 198TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2007019, HONORABLE ROB HOFMANN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In these accelerated appeals, appellant Monica Ramirez appeals the district court’s

order terminating her parental rights to her minor child R.R. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001

(West Supp. 2008). On September 11, 2008, this Court issued an opinion abating these appeals 1

and remanding them to the trial court for further proceedings. See Ramirez v. Texas Dep’t of Family

& Protective Servs., Nos. 03-08-00021-CV, 03-08-00150-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 11, 2008),

available at http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=17309 and

http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=17310. Upon remand,

the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and they have now filed an agreed motion asking

this Court to reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand these appeals based on the prior record.
2

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). Having reviewed the record, we grant the parties’ motion, reverse

the trial court’s judgment, and remand these appeals to the trial court for a new trial.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Reversed and Remanded

Filed: October 7, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               387,057
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  351,518
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,267)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,982
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,764
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,218
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. James C. HOWARD, Defendant.

No. COA17-77

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

DISMISSED IN PART; NO ERROR IN PART.
State of North Carolina v. Edward Roy Frye

No. 431P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Frye, Edward Roy.

Terence D. Friedman, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 28th of November 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of November 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*366"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In
connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SouthCrest
Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “ Periodic Report”),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his individual
knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Dated:
      May 15, 2008/s/
      Larry T. KuglarLarry T. KuglarChief
      Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. William Henry BAILEY III, Defendant.

No. COA16-1192

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. James Edward ARRINGTON

No. 280A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Arrington, James Edward.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 18th of August 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3945 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 

business research credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2014 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

for one year the business research credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

5 41(h)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘December 31, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘Decem7 ber 31, 2014’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph (D) 

9 of section 45C(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3945 IH

1 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2013’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘December 31, 2014’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

5 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              74,543
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,557,282
<ALLOWANCES>                                       209,317
<INVENTORY>                                        619,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,334,095
<PP&E>                                           3,568,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,748,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,326,636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,901,137
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            30,311
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,263,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,326,636
<SALES>                                         12,213,841
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,213,841
<CGS>                                            7,673,876
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,673,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,425,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 152,541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (957,408)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (957,408)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (957,408)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.33)



</TABLE>
Jeff HOLDEN doing business as Holden Development and Marketing, Plaintiff, v. INFICARE, INC., Defendant.

No. COA16-1061

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19310]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission (PRC).

Time and Date: Convening on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. and 
continuing daily thereafter as needed, after 9:30 a.m., until 
completed.

Place: Commission conference room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, 
Washington, DC 20268-0001.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be considered: Recommendations in Docket No. R2005-1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 
Postal Rate Commission, 202-789-6820.

    Dated: September 22, 2005.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19310 Filed 9-22-05; 4:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4152 

To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2014 

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (for himself and Mrs. LOWEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and 

in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF COSTS OF LOAN GUARANTEES 

4 FOR UKRAINE. 

5 From amounts appropriated or otherwise made avail6 able under ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in division K of the 

7 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113– 

8 76), and prior Acts making appropriations for the Depart9 ment of State, foreign operations, and related programs, 

10 funding from unobligated balances shall be made available 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4152 IH

1 for the costs, as defined in section 502 of the Congres2 sional Budget Act of 1974, of loan guarantees for 

3 Ukraine, which are authorized to be provided in an appro4 priations Act, in accordance with section 504 of the Con5 gressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That amounts 

6 made available for the costs of such guarantees shall not 

7 be considered ‘‘assistance’’ for the purpose of provisions 

8 of law limiting assistance to such country: Provided fur9 ther, That none of the funds may be made available from 

10 amounts designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 

11 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

12 of 1985. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Official Journal C 68A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.068.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 68A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 577 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.068.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 68A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 577 March 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 068A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — second supplement to the 32nd complete edition | 1 |
| 2014/C 068A/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — second supplement to the 32nd complete edition | 21 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 068A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — second supplement to the 32nd complete edition

1

2014/C 068A/02

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — second supplement to the 32nd complete edition

21

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
State of North Carolina v. Eric Lamar Lindsey

No. 398P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Ms. Sharon L. Smith, Attorney at Law, For Lindsey, Eric Lamar.

Ms. Kathryn E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Trey Robison, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 25th of October 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of October 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
# C_2021035EN.01001301.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Ingredion Germany GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-320/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme - Article 3(h) - New entrants - Article 10a - Transitional rules for free allocation of emission allowances - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 18(1)(c) - Fuel-related activity level - Second subparagraph of Article 18(2) - Relevant capacity utilisation factor)

(2021/C 35/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingredion Germany GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 18(2) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of allocating emission allowances free of charge to new entrants, the relevant capacity utilisation factor is limited to a value of less than 100 %.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

COURTNEY D. VAUGHN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30016 

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00021-RMP-19 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Courtney D. Vaughn appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his third revocation of 

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vaughn contends that the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-30016 

unreasonable because the district court placed too much emphasis on his poor 

history on supervised release instead of focusing on his mitigating arguments 

regarding his efforts to become a better father and his mental health issues. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including 

Vaughn’s repeated breaches of the district court’s trust and his refusal to avail 

himself of opportunities presented by the court. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United 

States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (primary purpose of 

revocation sentence is to sanction defendant’s breach of the court’s trust). 

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Constance Michelle SHEPERD

No. 36P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Jon H. Hunt, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kathleen M. Joyce, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Sheperd, Constance Michelle.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Thomas H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of January 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

 
 



 
 April 16, 2014 

Ms. Holly Bonner 
 Account Director 

134 Rio Robles Drive 
 San Jose, CA 95134 

Reference: Global Supply Agreement, dated April 21, 2005 

Dear Holly: 
 To allow for adequate time to complete
negotiations of our existing GSA document, we are amending the Global Supply Agreement between Applied Materials and MKS Instruments to extend the existing term. We will in good faith work on an evergreen agreement within anticipated completion in
the next three months. Unless the GSA is terminated sooner, the term of the GSA will now expire on July 30th, 2014. 
 All other Terms and Conditions
of the Global Supply Agreement remain unchanged. Additionally, any Addendums that expire upon the expiry or termination of the GSA shall also be extended for this additional period, unless terminated earlier as provided in the Addendum or this
letter. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ John A. Casey

	 John A. Casey
 Sr. Commodity Business
Manager


  

					
	/s/ John A. Casey	 		 	4/16/14
	Applied Materials	 	 	 	Date
			
	/s/ Gerald G. Colella	 	 	 	4/27/14
	 MKS Instruments
 Gerald G. Colella

CEO & President
	 		 	Date
# Official Journal C 197A/3 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 197A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 593 June 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 197A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 593 June 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 197A/1 | Vacancy for a Member of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board at grade AD 14 (Principal Adviser) — Secretariat-General — Engagement of a Temporary Agent under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — COM/2016/10367 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2016/C 197A/1

Vacancy for a Member of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board at grade AD 14 (Principal Adviser) — Secretariat-General — Engagement of a Temporary Agent under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — COM/2016/10367

1

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2016/C 197A/2 | Corrigendum to Directorate-General for Budget — Vacancy notice for a Principal Adviser function (AD 14) Brussels — (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2016/10366 ( OJ C 188 A, 27.5.2016 ) | 5 |

Corrigenda

2016/C 197A/2

Corrigendum to Directorate-General for Budget — Vacancy notice for a Principal Adviser function (AD 14) Brussels — (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2016/10366 ( OJ C 188 A, 27.5.2016 )

( OJ C 188 A, 27.5.2016 )

5

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN