alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LIMITED WAIVER - SEPARATION AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 9, 2020





 Exhibit 10.2 

LIMITED WAIVER – SEPARATION AGREEMENT 

This Limited Waiver – Separation Agreement (the “Waiver”) is made as of April 9, 2020 between Leggett & Platt,
Incorporated (the “Company”) and Jeffrey L. Tate (the “Executive”). 
 RECITALS 

On August 6, 2019, the Executive and the Company entered into a Separation Agreement (the “Agreement”) concerning the Executive’s
appointment as Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Capitalized terms in this Waiver shall have the meaning ascribed in the Agreement. 

Section 1.3 of the Agreement provides that Executive may terminate his employment for Good Reason following a reduction in the Executive’s base
salary as in effect on the Start Date. Section 2 of the Agreement entitles Executive to certain Termination Benefits in the event the Executive terminates his employment for Good Reason. 

The Company is considering a variety of cost-cutting measures in response to the economic downturn and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including potential reductions to certain senior executives’ compensation. A reduction in base salary not to exceed 50% for a duration not to exceed December 31, 2020 shall be called an
“Approved Reduction.” 
 The Executive agrees that such measures are appropriate and wishes to waive certain of his rights under the Agreement in
connection with an Approved Reduction. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Company and the Executive agree as follows: 

1.    Limited Waiver. The Executive hereby waives his rights (i) to terminate his employment for Good
Reason under Section 1.3 of the Agreement and (ii) to receive Termination Benefits under Section 2 of the Agreement in connection with an Approved Reduction. Executive’s waiver of the foregoing rights is conditioned upon
(i) such adjustments being approved by the Company’s Compensation Committee, (ii) such adjustments not exceeding (on a percentage basis) the adjustments made to the Chief Operating Officer’s compensation, and (iii) the
duration of such adjustments not extending beyond the duration of the adjustments made to the Chief Operating Officer’s compensation. 

2.    Continuing Agreement. Except as provided in Section 1 of this Waiver, no provisions of the
Agreement have been modified, waived or discharged. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Waiver has been signed as of the date first written above. 

 

									
	EXECUTIVE:	 		  		  	LEGGETT & PLATT, INCORPORATED	  	                    
					
	 /s/ JEFFREY L. TATE
	 	                	  	By:	  	 /s/ SCOTT S. DOUGLAS
	  	
	Jeffrey L. Tate	 		  	Name:	  	Scott S. Douglas	  	
		 		  	Title:	  	SVP - General Counsel & Secretary
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 5 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 5 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 9, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00807

- CR

Mark Allen WATSON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 2380

- CR

- B

The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED.

Appellant’s brief is due on September 1, 2016. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of Augu st, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:01CR43LAC

JEFF T. WRIGHT

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on October 3, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO CORRECT THE SPELLING OF FIRST NAME 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on 9/20/2006 Doc.# 37

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 11th day of

October, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) As defendant was arrested, indicted, entered into a plea agreement which was

signed by the defendant as “Jeffrey Wright,” entered a guilty plea, and was

sentenced under the name “Jeffrey T. Wright,” the records must stand as created.

Defendant’s motion will be made a part of the record documenting his claim of a

naming error. 

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:01-cr-00043-LC Document 38 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 1
#### IN RE GARRISON

No. 190 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 158.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 March 1980. Appeal dismissed 5 March 1980.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 1:10-cr-16-SPM/GRJ-1

ERIC JOSEF SCHULZ and

KELLY ANN SCHULZ,

 

Defendants.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Pursuant to the Reports and Recommendations (docs. 86, 87) of the United

States Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the pleas of

guilty of the Defendants, ERIC JOSEF SCHULZ and KELLY ANN SCHULZ, to Count

One of the Indictment are hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court

for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-ninth day of July, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:10-cr-00016-SPM-GRJ Document 88 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR JONES, MARY ANN JONES, OZIAH CARSON JONES, SHANTELL

SHAMEA JONES, KEVIN KENNEDY, MURIELLE KELLY KENNEDY, SANDRA WATTS

KENNEDY, FARINDA OSTEEN, MARIA PARSONS, MICHAEL PARSONS, AARON

JONES STEPHENSON, CARLOS UDAE STEPHENSON,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ

BEAZER EAST INC, CABOT CORPORATION, KOPPERS INC,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 34, Motion for Extension of Time to File

Response/Reply as to the Amended Complaint, and Doc. 35, Motion for Extension of Time to

respond to Plaintiff’s request for more time to file a Motion for Class Certification. On

September 22, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, doc. 17. On October 5, 2010,

Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint, Doc. 22, and a motion for an extension of time to

move to certify a class, Doc. 23. The filing of the First Amended Complaint mooted the Motion

to Dismiss. 

With respect to Doc. 34, motion for an extension of time to respond to the Amended

Complaint, Defendants note that the Amended Complaint adds several defendants, alleges new

facts, and sets forth several new grounds for relief. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ motion

for an extension of time. This Court finds there is good cause to allow Defendants more time to

respond to the Amended Complaint. 

With respect to Doc. 35, motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ request

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 36 Filed 10/20/10 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ

for an extension of time to file for class certification, similar good cause exists. Plaintiffs do not

oppose Defendants’ requested extension of time. Defendants’ deadline to submit a response to

the Amended Complaint will be extended. Defendants’ deadline to submit a response to

Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time with regards to filing for class certification will be

similarly extended. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE Doc. 17, Motion to Dismiss, as moot. 

2. Motion for an Extension of Time to respond to the Amended Complaint, Doc. 34,

is GRANTED. 

3. Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint by close of business

November 19, 2010. 

4. Motion for an Extension of Time to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for an extension

with regards to class certification, Doc. 35, is GRANTED. 

5. Defendants shall respond to the Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for

Class Certification by close of business November 19, 2010. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 36 Filed 10/20/10 Page 2 of 2
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
Case 1:07-cv-03559-LAP Document 4 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03559-LAP Document 4 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03559-LAP Document 4 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03559-LAP Document 4 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.2

                   MODIFICATION OF SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

WHEREAS this agreement is in reference to a loan which is evidenced by an 
instrument entitled Secured Promissory Note, (NOTE), dated August 29, 1997 
executed by LEE PHARMACEUTICALS for the original principal sum of One Hundred 
Thirty Eight Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($138,000.00) and payable to the 
order of PREFERRED BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.

Principal balance outstanding on this Note as of this date is EIGHTY THOUSAND 
THREE HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN AND 13/100 DOLLARS ($80,327.13).

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by the undersigned parties that the Note shall be 
amended in the following respect:

This Note shall bear interest at the rate of 14.5%, computed on the basis of 
a 360 day year for actual days elapsed.

The term of this Note shall be extended to May 21, 2000.


Except as noted above, all the terms, conditions and provisions of said Note 
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Date: May 15, 1998                     Loan Number: LEE05

PREFERRED BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.        LEE PHARMACEUTICALS
a California corporation               a California corporation
------------------------------         ----------------------------

By: /s/ Farhad Motia                   By: /s/ Ronald G. Lee
   ---------------------------             -------------------------
   Farhad Motia, President                 Ronald G. Lee, President
##### 



EXHIBIT 14
 CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS OF
OHIO LEGACY CORP
  I. Honest and Ethical Conduct
  
    
    Encourage and reward professional integrity in all aspects of the financial
organization by eliminating inhibitions and barriers to responsible behavior, such as
coercion and fear of reprisal, with respect to reporting any matters contrary to Company
policy.
    
    Prohibit and eliminate the appearance or occurrence of conflicts between what
is in the best interest of the Company and what could result in material personal gain for
an employee of the Company, including Senior Financial Officers.
    
    Provide a mechanism for employees of the Company to inform the Board of
Directors or a committee appointed by the Board of deviations in practice from policies
and procedures governing honest and ethical behavior.
    
    Demonstrate their personal support for such policies and procedures through
periodic communication reinforcing these ethical standards throughout the Company.
 II. Financial Records and Periodic Reports
  
    
    Business transactions are properly authorized and completely, timely and
accurately recorded on the Companys books and records in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), Rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, regulatory requirements and established Company policies.
    
    The retention or proper disposal of Company records shall be in accordance
with established Company financial policies and applicable legal and regulatory
requirements.
    
    Periodic financial communications and reports will be delivered in a manner
that facilitates the highest degree of clarity of content and meaning so that readers and
users will quickly and accurately determine their significance and consequence.




---



##### 



III. Compliance with Applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
  
    
    Educate members of the Company about any federal, state or local statute,
regulation or administrative procedure that affects the financial reporting operations
of the Company.
    
    Monitor the compliance of the finance affairs of the Company with any
applicable federal, state or local statute, regulation or administrative rule.
    
    Identify, report and correct in a swift and certain manner, any detected
deviations from applicable federal, state or local statute or regulation.
 IV. Accountability for Adherence to the Code of Conduct




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SANDRA MARIE HILL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv60-SPM/WCS

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Second Motion for

Summary Judgment (doc. 54), Plaintiff’s response (doc. 60), and Defendant’s

reply (doc. 65). The Court finds that the second motion is untimely. 

Furthermore, the motion will be denied based on Ali v. City of Clearwater,

807.F.Supp. 701, 703-04 (M.D. Fla. 1992), which reasoning the Court adopts. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary

Judgement (doc. 54) is denied. 

SO ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00060-MCR-CAS Document 68 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the
undersigned officer of Yarraman Winery, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:




(1) The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (the "Form
10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      June 1, 2009/s/Lawrence
      LichterLawrence
      Lichter,Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Yarraman Winery, Inc. and will be retained by Yarraman Winery, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
- Button2: 
    - Button3: 
    - Button5: 
    - Button6:
# C_2011079EN.01000501.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 26 November 2010 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/39.398 — VISA MIF

Rapporteur: Malta

2011/C 79/03

| 1. | The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's concerns expressed in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 8 November 2010 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's concerns expressed in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 8 November 2010 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Visa Europe's immediate debit card MIFs can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Visa Europe's immediate debit card MIFs can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Visa Europe are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on Visa Europe. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Visa Europe are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on Visa Europe.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Visa Europe, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Visa Europe's immediate debit card MIFs, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Visa Europe, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Visa Europe's immediate debit card MIFs, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account any other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account any other points raised during the discussion.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
#### STATE v. GRAY

No. 266P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 667.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 July 1982.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2124 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2124

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for institutional 
            shared responsibility for student loan default.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 16, 2019

  Mr. Hawley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for institutional 
            shared responsibility for student loan default.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Skin in the Game Act''.

SEC. 2. INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION REPAYING A PORTION OF STUDENT 
              LOAN DEBTS.

    Section 454 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087d) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Institutions of Higher Education Repaying a Portion of 
Student Loan Debts.--
            ``(1) In general.--Each institution of higher education 
        participating in the direct student loan program under this 
        part for a fiscal year shall be liable for 50 percent of any 
        student loan balance that is in default for a loan made under 
        this part that was used towards the cost of attendance at the 
        institution.
            ``(2) No offset.--An institution of higher education shall 
        not increase the costs of tuition at the institution, charge 
        any additional fee to students, or otherwise increase the cost 
        of attendance at the institution in order to offset the 
        liability of the institution under paragraph (1).''.
                                 <all>
```