alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exh10b1_xxiii.htm






ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC. EXCESS BENEFITS PLAN







AMENDMENT NO. 1












The Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. Excess Benefits Plan, effective June 29, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”, is hereby amended effective March 1, 2013, as follows:







1.           Section 2.14 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







“2.14  “Participant” means an eligible employee selected by the Chief Executive Officer of A&B (except, that with respect to the Chief Executive Officer of A&B, the Committee shall make the determination).







2.           Section 3.02 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







“Participation.  The Chief Executive Officer of A&B shall have the exclusive and unfettered discretion to select Plan Participants from among eligible employees; provided, however, that the Committee shall make the determination of whether the Chief Executive Officer of A&B is a Plan Participant.  A Participant in this Plan shall remain as such until the date he ceases to satisfy the participation requirements in the first sentence of this Section 3.02, until the date upon which the Participant experiences a Separation from Service for any reason or until such earlier time as may be specified by the Chief Executive Officer of A&B (except, that with respect to the Chief Executive Officer of A&B, that determination is made by the Committee).







3.           The last sentence in Appendix A, item #2, shall be deleted and replaced with the following:







“The after-tax equivalent rate shall be determined by multiplying the discount rate in use by the A&B Retirement Plan by the excess of 100% over the effective marginal tax rate declared by the Administrative Committee.”







4.           Item #3 in Appendix A shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







“The Administrative Committee shall declare the effective marginal tax rate at the beginning of each year.”












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officers on this 26th day of     February, 2013.







ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC.












By: /s/ Son-Jai Paik______________


       Its Vice President









By: /s/ Alyson Nakamura__________


                                                                                                                       Its Secretary
POOR SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE, LTD. Substitute Trustee v. Guy E. FRANKLIN and Rita Thomas Franklin

No. 293P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Rita Franklin, for Franklin, Guy E., et al.

D. Kyle Deak, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Poor Substitute Trustee, LTD.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th 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:

*529"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
State of North Carolina, v. Deborah Lynn Glisson, Defendant.

No. COA16-426

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

DISMISSED.
1472.

#### Henderson *v.*The State.

Accusation of carrying concealed weapon, from city. court of Oglethorpe — Judge Greer. October 20, 1908.

Argued November 23,

Decided December 8, 1908.

*Jere M. Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jule Felton, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

The evidence authorized the verdict. The charge of the court, especially in the absence of written requests for further instructions, covered the case with requisite fullness. No error appears.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 451 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.451

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 500 North Brevard Avenue in Cocoa Beach, Florida, as the ``Richard K. 
                          Salick Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RICHARD K. SALICK POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 500 North Brevard Avenue in Cocoa Beach, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Richard K. Salick Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard K. 
Salick Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Linda BERNARD, Alan Bernard, Plaintiffs, v. Mary Ann DEBLANCO, Defendant.

No. COA17-659

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shelton VAN LILLY

No. COA17-835

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
ROBINSON v. HOOKS

200P07-8

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Kenneth Earl Robinson, for Robinson, Kenneth E.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of January 2018 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

MARK WILSON KIKER , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0428 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2007

- 126197

- 001 The Honorable David King Udall , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney ' s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Mark Wilson Kiker , Kingman Petitioner FILED 10-2-2018STATE v. KIKER Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge James P

. Beene , Judge Michael J. Brown and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Mark Wilson Kiker see ks review of the superior court' s order denying his petition for post

- conviction reli ef, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proce dure 32.1. This is petitioner's second petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court wi ll not disturb a superior court' s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner' s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1 103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court' s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitio ner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
Exhibit 32(a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the
Company) for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Gottwald, chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



|                                      |  |                       
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|By:                                   |  | /s/ Thomas E. Gottwald
|Thomas E. Gottwald                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|October 30, 2008
# CE2004078EN.01008202.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/82

---

(2004/C 78 E/0081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2173/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Compliance with EU legislation on asbestos

Subject:

In its reply to Written Question E-1551/03 (1) the Commission stated that it intended to contact the Portuguese authorities with a view to ensuring that appropriate action is taken in order to enforce Community legislation on asbestos — thereby justifying the concern felt by the author of this question.

1

Would the Commission say when it intends to ‘ensure that [he Portuguese authorities] take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question’?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

(31 July 2003)

In accordance with its recent reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1551/03 (2), the Commission has sent a letter dated 16 June 2003 to the Portuguese Authorities asking them to check the correct and full implementation of Community law related to Asbestos in Portugal as required by Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (3).

2

3

The Commission currently awaits the reply of the Portuguese Authorities before taking, if appropriate, any further action.

---

(1)  See page 37.

1

(2)  See page 37.

2

(3)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

3

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Brad Cayton NORWOOD

No. 21P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Daniel Lawrence Spiegel, Appellate Defender, Katherine Whitney Dickinson-Schultz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Norwood, Brad Cayton.

Matthew Liles, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina *848***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of January 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th of January 2018 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of February 2018 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 9th of May 2018."
STATE of North Carolina v. Leonard Paul SCHALOW

No. 4PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 2, 2018

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  ANSWERS CORPORATION
  FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Form 10-Q of Answers Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Form 10-Q”), I, Robert S. Rosenschein, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 the best of my knowledge, the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
      Date: November 12, 2010
/s/ Robert S. RosenscheinRobert S. RosenscheinChief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Delexander Manson HILL, Defendant.

No. COA17-529

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 2, 2018

JUDGMENT ARRESTED. REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
#### Curtis D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D03-2094.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Curtis D. Johnson, in proper person.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and LEVY and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Robinson v. State,*793 So.2d 891 (Fla.2001); *McGregor v. State,*789 So.2d 976 (Fla.2001); *Saldo v. State,*789 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); *Merson v. State,*786 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
EX-10.1





					
	



	 	  
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
  
	  	 Exhibit 10.1

 
 Office of the Secretary

 

	 		  	 Office of the Assistant Secretary for
 Preparedness & Response
 Washington, D.C. 20201



 

 26 March 2013 
 Ray Taylor 
 VP Program Management 
 BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 4505 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 200 

Durham, NC 27703 
 Subject: Stop Work Order,
Contract No. HHSO100200700032C 
 Dear Mr. Taylor: 
 In accordance with FAR Part 42.1303 and FAR Part 52.242-15, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) hereby directs BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to stop-work on contract number
HHSO100200700032C and only perform the activities as listed below: 
  

	 	•	 	 Stability testing for stockpiled peramivir 


  

	 	•	 	 Complete study 301 study report 


  

	 	•	 	 Complete study 301 pharmacokinetic testing 


  

	 	•	 	 Closeout activities associated with termination of study 301, Completion of study 110 Clinical Study Report 



 

	 	•	 	 Preparation for type C meeting and In-Process Review (IPR), including assembly of FDA data package 



 

	 	•	 	 Clinical/Regulatory support for wind-down activities associated with closure of clinical sites and study termination, data monitoring and cleansing and
activities associated with preparation for type C meeting and IPR 


  

	 	•	 	 Continuation and completion of COA-approved virology and resistance testing 


 BARDA will continue to support the above activities as already described in the contract which are necessary to achieve the immediate milestones. These activities will be supported through the type C
meeting which is scheduled for April 1, 2013 and the IPR which is tentatively scheduled three (3) weeks afterwards. Once the IPR is conducted, the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) will make a decision on a path forward. Therefore,
BioCryst shall cease all services in support of the subject contract, with the exception of the activities listed above, and shall cease incurring any costs for those services Including but not limited to BioCryst’s indirect costs. Any and all
subcontractors shall be notified immediately that a stop-work order has been issued to the prime contractor. 
 The stop-work order shall remain
in place until June 5, 2013. As soon as feasible and prior to the expiration of the stop-work order, appropriate action shall be taken to terminate the contract; cancel the stop-work order; or extend the period, if necessary. 

Should BioCryst require additional information In regards to this stop-work order, please contact the undersigned via email at kim.morris@hhs.gov

 Sincerely, 
 Kim Morris 

Contracting Officer 
 HHS/OS/ASPR/AMCG


  










					
	



	 	DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES	  	 Office of the Secretary

 

	 		  	 Office of the Assistant Secretary for
 Preparedness & Response
 Washington, D.C. 20201



 


	Cc:	Kevin Gilligan, Project Officer 


Mike Wathen, Chief, Influenza Antiviral Branch 
 Robert Huebner, Director, Influenza Division
STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Brad Cayton NORWOOD, Defendant.

No. COA17-301

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 2, 2018

NO ERROR IN PART. REMANDED IN PART.
#### Louis COLEMAN, Individually and as Father of Louis Frank Coleman v. Dr. Richard DENO, Dr. Ivan Sherman and Joellen Smith Hospital.

No. 2003-C-0168.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

*636In re Coleman, Louis; Coleman, Louis Frank; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 90-14684; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 99-CA-2998.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.
<PAGE>   1

                                    EXHIBIT
                                      12.1





                                       43



<PAGE>   2
                                  EXHIBIT 12.1

                       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                     RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES(1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          March 18,      Jan. 1,
                                            Year           Year            1994 -         1994 -       Year Ended      Year Ended
                                           Ended          Ended         December 31,     Mar. 17,       Dec. 31,        Dec. 31,
                                       Dec. 31, 1996   Dec. 31, 1995       1994            1994           1993           1992
                                       -------------    ------------    ------------     --------      ----------      ----------
<S>                                    <C>              <C>           <C>                <C>          <C>               <C>
Income before income taxes             $11,969          $ 6,923          $ 9,585         $2,857       $13,169           $12,409

Interest                                 9,517            9,607            6,867            115           924               794

Interest portion of rental expense         714              645              237             24           398               296

Amortization of debt expenses              376              376              264              0             0                 0
                                       -------          -------          -------          -----       -------           -------

Earnings                               $22,576          $17,551          $16,953          $2,996      $14,491           $13,499
                                       =======          =======          =======          ======      =======           =======

Fixed charges                          $10,607          $10,628          $ 7,368          $  139      $ 1,322           $ 1,090
                                       =======          =======          =======          ======      =======           =======

Ratio                                      2.1              1.7              2.3            21.6         11.0              12.4
                                       =======          =======          =======          ======      =======           =======
</TABLE>

(1) All dollar amounts in thousands.

                                       44
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 of Silver Standard Resources Inc. (“ Silver Standard ”), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of our report dated February 20, 2014 on the consolidated financial statements of Silver Standard, comprising the consolidated statements of financial position as at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012; and on the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting of Silver Standard as of December 31, 2013.





We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-185498) of Silver Standard of our report dated February 20, 2014 referred to above.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





Chartered Accountants


March 14, 2014
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Robert T. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorney, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Attorney at Law, Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, David Weiss, Attorney at Law, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation of NC.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Citizens Excluded from Jury Service Based on Race.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeffrey Gerrish, Attorney at Law, James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Gregory B. Craig, Attorney at Law, Alex T. Haskell, Attorney at Law, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, for Experts in Law and Implicit Bias.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Becton, Charles, et al.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Retired Members of the NC Judiciary.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of May 2017 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).