alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.6

     

     

     

     

    Amendment
to Award Agreement

     

     

    


    This Amendment is dated as of June 26,
2009 and amends the Award Agreement dated August 3, 2007 between Richard A.
Gephardt and Embarq Corporation (“Embarq”).  In connection with the
proposed merger between Embarq, CenturyTel, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation
(“CenturyTel”) and Cajun Acquisition Company, a Delaware Corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of CenturyTel (the “Merger”), Embarq, CenturyTel and you agree
that your Award Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

     

    
      
        	
                 
      

              	
                1.

              	
                The
      Settlement Date shall be modified to be April 30,
  2010.

              


      

      


      
        	
                 
      

              	
                2.

              	
                For
      purposes of the Section 2 of the Award Agreement: (a) Mr. Gephardt will
      not be deemed to have had a Separation from Service from the Board of
      Directors of the Company upon completion of the Merger provided that
      following the Merger, he serves on the Board of Directors of CenturyTel;
      and (b) the completion of the Merger shall not be considered a “Change in
      Control” that accelerates settlement of the RSU
      Award.  Following the completion of the Merger, provisions of
      Section 2 relating to Separation from Service shall refer to Separation
      from Service from the Board of Directors of
  CenturyTel.

              


      

      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby agree to the terms of this
Amendment.

      


      
        	 
      	
                EMBARQ
      CORPORATION

              
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                By:  /s/ Claudia S.
      Toussaint    

              
	 
      	
                Name:
      Claudia S. Toussaint

              
	 
      	
                Title:
      General Counsel & Corporate
Secretary

              


      

    

     

     

    
      Accepted
and Agreed to:

      


      


      /s/   
Richard A. Gephardt                                                                    

              
Richard A. Gephardt
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HISRAEL RIVERA ORTIZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71620

Agency No. A088-514-112

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Hisrael Rivera Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUL 09 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). 

We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rivera Ortiz did

not establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. 

See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act

“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum

applicant’s persecution”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)

(“[a]n alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,

Rivera Ortiz’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because

Rivera Ortiz failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the

instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. 

See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, we reject Rivera Ortiz’s contentions that the BIA’s analysis of his

claims was inadequate and that the agency failed to consider all his circumstances. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-71620
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5442 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the disclosure 

of total corporate tax paid by a corporation in each annual report 

required to be filed under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

Mr. POCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 

the disclosure of total corporate tax paid by a corporation 

in each annual report required to be filed under such 

Act. 

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 ‘‘Corporate Trans5 parency and Accountability Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5442 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO DISCLOSE TOTAL CORPORATE 

2 TAXES PAID. 

3 Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

4 (15 U.S.C. 78m) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(s) DISCLOSURE OF TOTAL CORPORATE TAXES

7 PAID.— 

8 ‘‘(1) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.—Each issuer 

9 required to file an annual or quarterly report under 

10 subsection (a) shall disclose in that report— 

11 ‘‘(A) the total pre-tax profit of the issuer 

12 during the period covered by the report; and 

13 ‘‘(B) the total amount paid by the issuer 

14 in State and Federal taxes during the period 

15 covered by the report. 

16 ‘‘(2) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—The 

17 Commission shall ensure that, to the greatest extent 

18 practicable, the information required by this sub19 section is publicly available through the Commission 

20 website in a manner that is searchable, sortable, and 

21 downloadable.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### D. *G.*MATTHEWS v. ED. JONES et al.

(Filed 12 March, 1930.)

Appeal and Error F b — Appeal will be dismissed when assignments of error according to Rules do not appear in record.

Exceptive assignments of error according to the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court must appear in the record on appeal or the case will be dismissed.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Devin, J.,*at September Term, 1929, of MARTIN.

Civil action to recover rent and to enforce a landlord’s lien.

From a judgment for tbe rent, but without enforcement against tbe crops, tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*B. A. Gritcher for plaintiff.*

*A. B. Dunning for defendants.*

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe record fails to disclose any exceptive assignment of error, made in accordance with tbe rules, which can be sustained, hence tbe judgment will be upheld. *Cecil v. Lumber Co.,*197 N. C., 81, 147 S. E., 735.

No error.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 21, 2016

d1214 

# Order

Clerk December 21, 2016

154065

SUSAN R. BANK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154065

COA: 326668

Oakland CC: 2014

- 139221

- CL

MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

- NEA and NOVI EDUCATION

ASSOCIATION MEA

- NEA,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2016

judgment of the Cour t of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the accompanying
condensed consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          29,539
<SECURITIES>                                    43,718
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,215
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,488
<PP&E>                                         198,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 392,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,251
<BONDS>                                        309,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     (58,288)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   392,315
<SALES>                                         82,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,965
<CGS>                                           77,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,926)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NO. 12-08-00243-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

HEATH L. JOHNSON, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to escape and originally received deferred adjudication community

supervision. His guilt was later adjudicated, and he was sentenced to six years of imprisonment.

He appealed to this court, and his appeal was dismissed because he did not furnish proof, after

notice, that he had paid or made arrangements to pay for preparation of the trial record. See Johnson

v. State, No. 12-06-00076-CR, 2006 WL 1549985, at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler June 7, 2006, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus

in the court of criminal appeals. The trial court determined that the Smith County Probation

Department received Appellant’s payment for the trial record, but never forwarded it to the Smith

County District Clerk. Consequently, the court of criminal appeals granted Appellant an out of time

appeal. See Ex parte Johnson, No. AP–75,844, 2008 WL 384083, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 13,

2008) (not designated for publication). 

To perfect his appeal, Appellant was required to take affirmative steps to file a written notice

of appeal in the trial court within thirty days after the court of criminal appeals issued its mandate.

Id. The court of criminal appeals issued its mandate on March 10, 2008, making Appellant’s notice

of appeal due on or before April 9, 2008. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until
2

June 5, 2008. Therefore, the notice of appeal was untimely. On that same date, Appellant filed a

document that we construe as a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal.

An appellate court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after

the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files a notice of appeal in the trial court and files

a motion in the appellate court that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.3. To obtain an extension of time to file his appeal, Appellant must have filed his

motion not later than March 25, 2008. Because his motion was not filed until June 5, 2008, it is

untimely. Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as

provided by Rule 26.3, the appeal must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Accordingly,

Appellant’s motion is overruled, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered June 11, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)June 11, 2008
Exhibit
10.3

     

    Rubio’s
Restaurants, Inc.

    


    2008
Equity Incentive Plan

    


    Amendment
No. 1

     

    1.           Section
3(a) entitled “Aggregate
Limits” of the 2008 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended
to add a new sentence at the end thereof to read as follows:

     

    “Notwithstanding
the preceding sentence, no Shares shall be added to the aggregate share reserve
in accordance with the preceding sentence with respect to the 2010 and 2011
calendar years.”

     

    2           A
new Section 3(c) entitled “Full Value Award Limits” is added to the Plan as
follows:

     

    “(c)           Full Value Award
Limits.  Subject to the provisions of Section 14 of the Plan,
the maximum aggregate number of Awards that may be granted under the Plan in the
form of Full Value Awards shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the
total number of Awards not exceed the total number of Shares authorized for
issuance under the Plan, including the additional Shares made available each
calendar year pursuant to the second sentence in Section 3(a) of the
Plan.  For this purpose, a “Full Value Award” shall be defined as any
Stock Award settled in Shares other than a Stock Appreciation Right or other
similar awards made pursuant to Section 11 of the Plan.”

     

    3.           All
other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.

     

    Executed
this 29th day of July, 2009.

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        RUBIO’S
      RESTAURANTS, INC.

                      
	 	 
	
                        By:

                      	
                        /s/ Frank Henigman

                      
	
                        Name:

                      	
                            
      Frank Henigman

                      
	
                        Title:

                      	
                            
      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
  Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 24, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas**                     (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

*1. Thomas L. Rees*, Colorado City, Texas; to retain voting shares of City National Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of The City National Bank of Colorado City, both of Colorado City, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 4, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-13853 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5292 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5292

   To provide public safety officer disability benefits to officers 
  disabled before the enactment of the Federal public safety officer 
                        disability benefits law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2014

Mr. Reed (for himself and Ms. Slaughter) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide public safety officer disability benefits to officers 
  disabled before the enactment of the Federal public safety officer 
                        disability benefits law.

    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 ``Disabled Public Safety Officers 
Fairness Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS DISABLED BEFORE 
              ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DISABILITY LAW.

    (a) In General.--Section 1201(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796(b)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``determines that a public safety 
        officer has'' the following: ``, whether before, on, or after 
        the date of the enactment of this part,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In 
        the case of a public safety officer seeking a benefit under the 
        previous sentence on the basis of having been permanently and 
        totally disabled as the direct result of a catastrophic injury 
        sustained in the line of duty before the date of the enactment 
        of this part, such officer may file a claim under this 
        subsection during the same period that would be applicable to 
        such an officer so disabled after the date of the enactment of 
        this part, except that in lieu of such a period beginning on 
        the date of the injury such period shall begin on the date of 
        the enactment of the Disabled Public Safety Officers Fairness 
        Act of 2014.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
any public safety officer alive on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1




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 Annual Report of MEMSIC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dr. Yang Zhao, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




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.




Date: April 30, 2013





/S/ YANG ZHAOYang ZhaoPresident and Chief Executive Officer
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

4840-4592-8620.1

Exhibit C

SUMMARY OF EXPENSES BY CATEGORY

FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2019 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019

Category Amount

Airfare $2,261.02

Out of town travel meals $217.32

Car services $470.57

Hotels $2,421.33

Total $5,370.24

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4726-3 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 14:22:32 Page 1

of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5562 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5562

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 801 West Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, as the ``Federal 
Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCOTT J. WILLIAMS MEMORIAL POST 
              OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 801 West Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Federal Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams 
Memorial Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``Federal 
Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Hecla Consolidated Gold Mining Company, Respondent, v. William L. O’Neill, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Van Brunt, P. J.