alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
First Amendment to the EA Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.58 
 Execution Copy 
 First Amendment 
 to the 
 Electronic Arts Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, 
 As Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2005 
 WHEREAS, Electronic Arts Inc. (the “Company”) sponsors the Electronic Arts Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, As Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2005 (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the provisions of the Plan relating to the deferral of annual bonuses; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company reserves the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 10.2 thereof; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective January 1, 2008, the Plan is amended as follows: 
 1.    The following provisions shall be added at the end of Section 3.1(a) Annual Base Salary, Annual Bonus and Director
Fees: 
 Effective for deferral elections made during any Plan Year commencing on or after January 1, 2008, a Participant may elect
to defer, as his or her Annual Deferral Amount, Annual Base Salary and/or Director Fees in the following minimum amount: 
  

			
	Deferral	  	Minimum Amount
	Annual Base Salary	  	$5,000
	Director Fees	  	$5,000

 If an election is made for less than such minimums or if no election is made, the amount deferred
shall be zero. 
 2.    The following provisions shall be added at the end of Section 3.2(a) Annual Base Salary,
Annual Bonus and Director Fees: 
 Effective for deferral elections made during any Plan Year commencing on or after January 1,
2008, a Participant may elect to defer, as his or her Annual Deferral Amount, Annual Base Salary and/or Director Fees up to the following maximum percentages for each deferral elected: 
  

			
	Deferral	  	Maximum Percentage
	Annual Base Salary	  	75%
	Director Fees	  	100%

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has signed this First Amendment to the Plan as of this 12th day of
August, 2008. 
 Electronic Arts Inc. 
 By: /s/ John Andrews 
 Title: VP, HR Operations
ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CAUSE NO. DA 21-0222

_____________________________________________________________

In re the GUARDIANSHIP OF B.K.,

 A Minor Child.

MARGARET LOUISE KLUBBEN

and FRED KLUBBEN,

 Petitioners/Appellees,

-andJESSICA SMALLING and

JASON KLUBBEN,

 Respondents/Appellants.

_____________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING WITHRAWAL

_____________________________________________________________

Counsel for Appellees Margaret and Fred Klubben has moved for 

permission to withdraw as counsel of record upon signed request of the 

Appellees. Good cause appearing, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that counsel for Appellee’s Motion to Withdraw is 

hereby APPROVED. All further service on Appellees shall be made to the 

following: 6220 East Day Mt. Spokane Rd., Mead, Washington, 99021.

DATED this ____ day of ________________________, 2021.

____________________________

JUSTICE, MT SUPREME COURT

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 27 2021

05/27/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0222
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4588

WELDON BERNARD SINCLAIR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-2FO)

Submitted: March 14, 2002

Decided: March 26, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Weldon Bernard Sinclair appeals his conviction and sentence on

the ground that at the time of sentencing, the district court should

have revisited the issue of his competence to plead guilty. In support

of his claim, he presented the medical report of a neuro-psychologist

who opined that Sinclair suffers from significant deficits in cognitive

ability and information processing. However, the psychologist also

opined that Sinclair was competent to plead when he did so and was

competent to proceed with the resolution of his case, so long as special care was taken to make sure he understood.1

Because there were no abnormalities in Sinclair’s Fed. R. Crim. P.

11 plea colloquy such that the district court should have questioned

Sinclair further as to his mental competency, and given the opinions

in the expert’s report as to Sinclair’s competency, we find no error by

the district court in failing to revisit the issue of Sinclair’s competency at sentencing.2

 Accordingly, we affirm Sinclair’s conviction and

sentence. We 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

1We note that both the district court and counsel took special care to

fully explain to Sinclair the proceedings against him and the effect of his

plea on his rights. 

2Sinclair’s reliance upon United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561 (4th

Cir. 1999), is misplaced. In Damon, we remanded for further inquiry into

Damon’s competence because he, unlike Sinclair, testified at his plea

colloquy that he was under the influence of anti-depressant medication,

which in some circumstances is known to impair judgment. Here there

were no circumstances present which required the district court to conduct a more searching inquiry into Sinclair’s competence. 

2 UNITED STATES v. SINCLAIR
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11488]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12163]


Louisiana Disaster <greek-i>LA-00032 Declaration of Economic 
Injury

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) 
declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated 05/05/2010.
    Incident: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
    Incident Period: 04/20/2010 And Continuing.
    Effective Date: 05/05/2010.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/07/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury 
disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Parishes:
    Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, Saint Bernard, Saint 
Tammany.
Contiguous Parishes and Counties:
    Louisiana: Assumption, Saint Charles, Saint James, St John The 
Baptist, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, Washington.
    Mississippi: Hancock, Pearl River.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere..      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 121630.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are 
Louisiana; Mississippi.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002)

    Dated: May 5, 2010.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-11488 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### In re DAHLMAN’S ESTATE.

(No. 1,607.)

(Submitted June 1, 1903.

Decided June 15, 1903.)

*Probata-*— Jurisdiction *of Court*— Bower.

When a court is exercising its- probate jurisdiction, it has no power with reference to dower, and can make no orders affecting a widow’s dower right.

*Appeal from- District Court, Jefferson County; M. H. Par-leer, Judge.*

AnNa Dahlman appeals from an order of final distribution in. the estate of Henry Dahlman.

Affirmed.

*Messrs. Walsh & Newman,*for Appellant.

*Mr. George F. Cowan,*and *Mr. A. J. Craven,*for Respondents.

MR. OHIEE JUSTICE BRANTLY

delivered the opinion of the court.

This matter comes before this court upon an appeal from an order of final distribution. At the time the order was made, Anna Dahlman, appellant in her own right, requested that the court embody in it a statement that it was made without prejudice to her rights under the provisions of the Civil Code relating to dower, and her right of election in lieu thereof under Section 236 of that Code. This the court refused to do, because the judge was of the opinion that, having elected to share in the estate as heir under the statutes relating to succession (Civil Code, Section 1852 *et seq.),*the appellant had thereby waived her claim to dower.

Whether the court erred in refusing to’ embody in the order this reservation is the only question upon which a decision is *380sought. The rights of the appellant in the premises were settled and determined hy this court in the case of *Dahlman*v. *Dahlman*(this day decided), *ante*p. 373, 72 Pac. 748. We are of the opinion that she suffered no prejudice by the order as made. We have not been able to find any provision in the Title (Title XII) of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to probate proceedings, giving to the court, when sitting in probate, jurisdiction of any matter touching the admeasurement of dower. The jurisdiction upon this subject is conferred upon the court as a court of general jurisdiction, and it must be invoked by an independent action under the provisions of Title XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The remedy therein provided is, we think, exclusive. The court, when exercising its probate jurisdiction, has, therefore, no power with reference' to dower, and no order which it may make touching the distribution of property during the course of administration can, of itself, affect the right of dower in any lands to which the right has attached, or any election which the widow has with reference to1 it. She may bring her action to have her dower allotted to her, notwithstanding the order of distribution makes no> mention of her right. This being the case, the court committed no error in making the order, though the reason for its action in the premises was not correct. The order is therefore affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2238 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2238

To designate 3 counties in the State of Montana as High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas and authorize funding for drug control activities in 
                              those areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2000

  Mr. Baucus introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate 3 counties in the State of Montana as High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas and authorize funding for drug control activities in 
                              those areas.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS IN 
              MONTANA.

    The counties of Yellowstone, Missoula, and Cascade are designated 
as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas and shall be part of the Rocky 
Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area under the program 
administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005 to carry out drug 
control activities in the areas designated by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### James Flansburg, Respondent, v. The Town of Elbridge, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

All concurred, except Robson, J., who dissented.
**Exhibit 31.1**

** **

**PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**UnderRule 13a-14 (a) / 15d-14 (a)**

 

I, Greg D. Forrest,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof XETA Technologies, Inc;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

c)              disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Dated:  June 3, 2008

 
| /s/ Greg D. Forrest     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Greg D. Forrest         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
COMPUTATION OF (LOSS) EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               1998                1997             1996
<S><C>
Weighted average of common shares outstanding during the period
  (adjusted to reflect two-for-one stock split-up)                             6,935,957         6,690,794       6,126,410
Net loss                                                                    $(40,258,909)     $(14,800,050)    $(6,612,113)
Dividends and accretion on Series A, B, C and D Redeemable                     3,750,733         1,382,083         552,531
  Convertible Preferred Stock
Net loss as adjusted                                                        $(44,009,642)     $(16,182,133)    $(7,164,644)
Net loss per common share, basic and diluted                                      $(6.35)           $(2.42)         $(1.17)
</TABLE>

All outstanding options and warrants as of June 30, 1998
and 1997 have been excluded as they are anti-dilutive. Diluted
earnings per share was not calculated as the options, warrants
and Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock are anti-dilutive.
Exhibit 32.2

             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, filed pursuant to
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of NBC
Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard T. Haston, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

3)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

4)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.


                                       /s/ Richard T. Haston
                                       _________________________________
                               Name:   Richard Haston
                               Title:  Executive Vice President and Chief
                                         Financial Officer
                               Date:   August 11, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to NBC Capital Corporation and will be retained by NBC Capital
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### Mary Bernadette Baumer, an Infant, etc., and Louis Baumer, Plaintiffs, *v.*Sidney Gottlieb and Another, Defendants

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County,

November 9, 1936.

*Harry Levine,*for the plaintiffs.

*Tippett & Talley [D. S. Talley*of counsel], for the defendants.

Kadien, J.

A car owned and operated by the defendant Gottlieb struck the infant plaintiff. She sustained injuries, and the infant and her father are bringing this action to recover damages and for the loss of her services from the individual and corporate defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged and sought to prove that at the time of the occurrence the defendant Gottlieb was operating the automobile for and on behalf of the corporate defendant. At the end of the *925plaintiffs’ case the corporate defendant rested and took no further part in the trial. Its liability must, therefore, be decided on that proof. The defendant Gottlieb put in his case.

The proof establishes that Gottlieb was employed by the corporate defendant to solicit orders in the territory of Brooklyn and New York on its behalf on a strictly commission basis, in the manner and at such times as he determined. He was not required to sell exclusively the merchandise of the corporate defendant but only to refrain from the sale of products of its competitors. It was customary for him to report at the office of the corporate defendant weekly and at times twice a week to report sales and to have his commissions thereon adjusted and paid. The corporate defendant knew that Gottlieb used an automobile in his selling operations but it did not have any control over him with respect to the use of the vehicle, which was personally maintained by him. At the time of the occurrence the individual defendant was endeavoring to obtain orders for the sale of the corporate defendant’s merchandise. The plaintiffs failed to prove that at the time of the accident the relation of master and servant existed between the defendants. The defendant Gottlieb was an independent contractor. *(Malloy*v. *Scott, 248*App. Div.--; *Sudowski*v. *Toledo Scale Co.,*243 id. 553; *Haykl*v. *Drees,*247 id. 90; *Fritz*v. *Chertok,*N. Y. L. J., Dec. 21, 1935, p. 2556; affd., 248 App. Div. 573.) As to the corporate defendant, Adelphi Paint and Color Works, Inc., the complaint is dismissed, without costs.

The evidence is conclusive that the plaintiff suddenly ran into the street and against the automobile, sustaining the injuries of which she now complains. She is only nine years of age but unusually intelligent. She knew the dangers of the highway and had been warned of those dangers. The credible evidence sustains the defendant Gottlieb’s contention that the accident was without any fault on his part. Judgment for the defendant Gottlieb, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  ESTRACTED  FROM 6/30/97
BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY RERERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000742685
<NAME>                        THE CHLAONE WINE GROUP,LTD.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         134
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    28,315
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34,216
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,283
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       41,886
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   77,095
<SALES>                                        8,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          4658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                   445
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   667
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0
        


</TABLE>