alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.18



 EXHIBIT 10.18 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 ALLERGAN, INC. 
 SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN 
 (RESTATED 2008) 
 The ALLERGAN, INC. SAVINGS AND
INVESTMENT PLAN (the “Plan”) is hereby amended January 1, 2009 as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 4.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 (a)                    Each Eligible Employee may elect to defer the receipt of a portion of his or her Compensation and to have the
deferred amount contributed directly by the Company to the Plan as Before Tax Deposits. Before Tax Deposits may be made only by means of a payroll deduction. Additionally, unless otherwise restricted by law and pursuant to procedures and
restrictions established by the Company, a former Eligible Employee may defer the receipt of a portion of his or her Compensation in accordance with an applicable election made while an Eligible Employee, provided that such Compensation is paid
within two and a half months after his or her Severance Date. 
  

	2.	Section 4.6(b) of the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 (b)                    The right of a Participant to make Before Tax Deposits or After Tax Deposits shall cease during any period of
Severance, except as provided under Section 4.1(a). 
  

	3.	Section 5.6(e) of the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 (e)                    Notwithstanding the requirement of paragraph (a) above that Matching Contributions be invested in the Company
Stock Fund, (i) any Participant may elect that amounts accumulated in his or her Matching Contributions Account which are held in the Company Stock Fund be reinvested, (ii) any Participant on or after the date he or she attains age 55 may
elect that any future Matching Contributions be invested, and (iii) upon the establishment and implementation of election procedures by the Company following the adoption date of this Amendment, any Participant may elect that any future
Matching Contributions be invested in any of the investment funds currently offered and currently available to Participants as determined by the Committee pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) above. An election made under this
paragraph (e) shall be effective as soon as administratively feasible. A Participant shall make any election, and may change any election, at such times and in accordance with the requirements imposed by paragraphs (c) and
(d) above. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Allergan, Inc. hereby executes this Second Amendment to the Allergan, Inc. Savings
and Investment Plan (Restated 2008) on this 15th day of June, 2009. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Dianne Dyer-Bruggeman
		 	 Dianne Dyer-Bruggeman
 Executive Vice President, Human
Resources
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

EXHIBIT B 

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR 

SERVICES RENDERED BY WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

002 Asset Sales/363 Sales 31.50 $25,689.00 

003 Automatic Stay 19.50 $13,851.00 

004 Bankruptcy Litigation 432.70 $352,279.50 

005 Bar Date Motion/Claims Reconciliation/Claim Reconciliation Issue 98.80 $92,540.00 

006 Case Administration (docket updates, WIP and calendar) 18.60 $11,191.50 

008 Chapter 11 Plan/Plan Confirmation 533.00 $576,517.50 

009 Communications with Client 11.20 $10,093.00 

010 Corporate Governance and Board Issues 64.60 $76,428.00 

011 Customer, Supplier and Vendor Issues 13.50 $13,020.00 

012 DIP Financing/ Cash Mgmt/ Hedging Transactions 2.80 $2,308.50 

014 Employee Issues 208.70 $202,758.00 

016 Exclusivity 317.90 $296,652.50 

017 Executory Contracts/Lease Issues 62.60 $42,380.50 

018 General Case Strategy(includes calls with client and team calls) 99.10 $86,770.50 

019 Hearings and Court Matters 36.80 $38,318.50 

021 Non-Bankruptcy Litigation 3.10 $2,096.50 

022 Non-Working Travel 78.00 $47,434.00 

024 Reclamation/503(b)(9) 26.40 $16,227.00 

025 Regulatory Issues including CPUC and FERC 63.20 $61,674.00 

026 Retention/Billing/Fee Applications: WGM 34.50 $22,030.00 

027 Retention/Fee Application: Ordinary Course Professionals 1.10 $759.00 

028 Retention/Fee Application: Other Professionals 34.20 $23,914.50 

029 Schedules/Statement of Financial Affairs 9.80 $8,300.50 

030 Tax Issues 249.20 $287,474.00 

031 U.S. Trustee issues/ meetings/ communications/monthly operating 5.20 $5,462.00 

032 Unsecured Creditor Issues/ Communications/Meetings 5.40 $5,636.00 

033 Utility Issues/ Adequate Assurance 0.50 $345.00 

035 Real Estate and Real Property Issues 64.70 $56,275.50 

036 Tort Claimants Committee, including Wildfire Claimants 16.40 $12,679.00 

037 Insurance Issues 1.20 $1,290.00 

Total: 2,544.20 $2,392,395.00 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4664-2 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 16:59:21 Page 1

of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6546

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL L. HUCKS, JR., a/k/a Junie Boy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-JBF)

Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 6, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel L. Hucks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Groner, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Samuel L. Hucks, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Hucks, No. 2:98-cr-00047-JBF (E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2006).

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
#### Stanley Stykowski *vs.*Samuel Kaplan *&*another.

Bristol.

October 26, 1931.

October 27, 1931.

Present: Hugo, C.J., Ckosby, Carroll, Sanderson, & Field, *JJ.*

*Minor. Evidence,*Presumptions and burden of proof.

At the hearing in a district court of an action to recover the price paid in a purchase of a chattel by the plaintiff, who alleged that, when he made the contract to purchase, he was a minor and that he disaffirmed it, the burden of proving such minority was on the plaintiff and, the judge not being required to believe testimony of the plaintiff and of his father upon which the plaintiff relied for such proof, a finding for the defendant should not be disturbed on appeal.

Contract. Writ in .the Third District Court of Bristol dated January 28, 1930.

The action was heard in the District Court by *Doran,*J. The judge found for the defendant, and reported the action to the Appellate Division for the Southern District. The report was ordered dismissed. The plaintiff appealed.

*J. Ferriera,*for the plaintiff, submitted a brief.

No argument nor brief for the defendants.

By the Court.

This action is based on the contention that the plaintiff, because he was a minor, had a right to disaffirm a contract for the purchase of a chattel made by him with the defendants and to recover the consideration paid by him. An essential element of the plaintiff’s case was to prove that he was a minor at the time the contract was made. That was a pure question of fact. Although the plaintiff testified that he was a minor, and was partially corroborated by testimony of his father, the trial judge was not satisfied that either knew the true age of the plaintiff and found for the defendants. On the printed report the testimony appears unsatisfactory. That may have been *139intensified by the appearance of the witnesses. The trial judge was not bound to believe them. His adverse finding of fact is conclusive against the plaintiff. There was no error of law in dealing with the requests for rulings.

*Order dismissing report affirmed.*
Filed 8/26/22 P. v. Rebolledo CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on 

opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 

8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v.

FERNANDO REBOLLEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B316179

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

YA091800)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard B. Lennon and Cheryl Lutz, under appointment by 

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

In October 2015, defendant and appellant Fernando 

Rebolledo (defendant) pled no contest to three criminal charges: 

continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)),

lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (Pen. 

Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and unlawful sexual intercourse with a 

minor (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced 

him to 18 years in prison. Almost a year later, in August 2016, 

the court held a restitution hearing and ordered defendant to 

make restitution to the Victim Compensation and Government 

Claims Board in the amount of $8,535 (plus interest).

Defendant did not appeal the restitution order. But five 

years later, in 2021, defendant filed what he styled as a petition 

to modify or contest the trial court’s restitution order. The trial 

court denied that petition, and defendant noticed an appeal from 

the denial order. Defendant’s attorneys on appeal filed an 

opening brief that asks this court to proceed via the procedure 

described in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 and

suggests the order denying defendant’s petition is an appealable

order because it affects defendant’s substantial rights or 

constitutes an unauthorized sentence.

That is wrong on both counts. The order from which 

defendant purports to appeal is not appealable. (People v. 

Howerton (1953) 40 Cal.2d 217, 220; see also People v. King

(2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 637-639; People v. Turrin (2009) 176 

Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208-1209.)
3

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.
#### STATE v. MAY HARRILL.

(Filed 27 September, 1944.)

Prostitution. § 5b—

Testimony, tending to sbow tbe reputation of the house of defendant and of persons residing in or frequenting the same, is made competent by statute in cases of prosecution for prostitution. G. S., 14-206.

*478Appeal by defendant from *Pless, J.,*at May Term, 1944, of Ruthee-poed. No error.

The defendant was charged with prostitution. The jury returned verdict of guilty, and from judgment imposing sentence,, defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney s-General Patton and Rhodes for the State.*

*Hamrich <& Ham/rick and T. J. Moss for defendant.*

DeviN, J.

The record discloses that there was sufficient evidence offered by the State to carry the case to the jury on the charge of engaging in prostitution as defined by the statute. G. S., 14-203. There was general verdict of guilty. The defendant offered no evidence.

Exception was noted to the admission by the court, over objection, of testimony tending to show the bad character of the three women who resided in the house occupied by the defendant. This testimony, together with evidence of the reputation of the house, is made competent by statute in cases of prostitution. G. S., 14-206; *S. v. Waggoner,*207 N. C., 306, 176 S. E., 566; *S. v. Sinodis,*189 N. C., 565, 127 S. E., 601.

The exception that the judge’s charge did not comply with G. S., 1-180, cannot be sustained. *S. v. Dilliard,*223 N. C., 446.

In the trial we find

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5434-5435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01808]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-750-000]


Bethel Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Bethel Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is February 10, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the

[[Page 5435]]

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5838097868aaba9acaba096b0b5b5aab7b185a3a0b7a6eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e787b6c7d71505257505b6d4b4e4e514c4a7e585b4c5d10595148">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01808 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Samuel Friedman, as Administrator, etc., of Morris Friedman, Deceased, Claimant, *v.*The State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 24483.)

Court of Claims,

December 16, 1936.

*Sachs & Picket [Morway Picket*of counsel], for the claimant.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General [Darwin W. Telesford, Assistant Attorney-General,*of counsel], for the defendant.

Greenberg, J.

This is a motion made by claimant for an examination of witnesses before trial, and for an order permitting claimant to inspect and discover records and to make extracts therefrom, and to examine witnesses with respect thereto, and to inspect and discover and photograph the premises where the accident is alleged to have occurred.

There is no statutory authority for the examination, inspection or discovery sought by the claimant. The Court of Claims Act and Rules of the Court of Claims make no provision for such examination or discovery. The fact that plaintiff is a representative of a deceased, and brings this action in a representative capacity, does not afford him further or additional rights. *(Falco*v. *N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co.,*161 App. Div. 735, 738.) While the examination sought herein is of “ witnesses,” it is my opinion that the result would be the same as the examination of the State as a party; the examination would be of officers and employees of the State. *(Cooper*v. *Village of Brockport,*246 App. Div. 571.)

Upon the authority of the case of *Bush Terminal Co.*v. *City of New York*(259 N. Y. 509), and the recent decision of the Court of Claims in *Langdon*v. *State of New York*(160 Misc. 946), the motion herein must be denied. Submit order accordingly.

Barrett, P. J., concurs.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5462 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5462

                     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 amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for limitations on the 
               fees charged to passengers of air carriers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FEES CHARGED TO PASSENGERS OF AIR CARRIERS.
    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 44940 of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Limitation on Fee.--
        ``(1) Amount.--Fees imposed under subsection (a)(1) shall be 
    $5.60 per one-way trip in air transportation or intrastate air 
    transportation that originates at an airport in the United States, 
    except that the fee imposed per round trip shall not exceed $11.20.
        ``(2) Definition of round trip.--In this subsection, the term 
    `round trip' means a trip on an air travel itinerary that 
    terminates or has a stopover at the origin point (or co-
    terminal).''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to a trip in air transportation or intrastate air 
transportation that is purchased on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5757 

To redesignate the Frances Perkins Department of Labor building located 

at 200 Constitution Ave., NW in Washington, DC as the ‘‘Reed Larson 

Department of Labor Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2014 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Frances Perkins Department of Labor 

building located at 200 Constitution Ave., NW in Washington, DC as the ‘‘Reed Larson Department of Labor 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honoring Workers’ 

5 Rights Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5757 IH

1 (a) Reed Larson was the driving force behind one of 

2 the greatest expansions of workers’ rights, the Right to 

3 Work. 

4 (b) The overwhelming majority of Americans and 

5 union workers agree no one should have to pay a union 

6 boss to get or keep a job. 

7 (c) Millions of workers around the country can now 

8 choose whether to join a union because of Reed Larson’s 

9 life work. 

10 (d) A union accountable to its members is a union 

11 that can better represent its members. 

12 SEC. 3. REED LARSON DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUILDING. 

13 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Labor build14 ing located at 200 Constitution Ave., NW in Washington, 

15 DC is redesignated as the ‘‘Reed Larson Building’’. 

16 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg17 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

18 States to the facility referenced to subsection (a) shall be 

19 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Reed Larson Department 

20 of Labor Building’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32821-32822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13754]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12132 and <greek-i>12133]


Minnesota Disaster Number MN-00024

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Minnesota 
(FEMA-1900-DR), dated 04/19/2010.
    Incident: Flooding.
    Incident Period: 03/01/2010 through 04/26/2010.
    Effective Date: 05/28/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/18/2010.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/19/2011.

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,

[[Page 32822]]

U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, 
Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Minnesota, dated 04/19/2010, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Grant.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008).

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-13754 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P