alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




First Amendment

to the

Temple-Inland Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan




     WHEREAS, Temple-Inland Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Temple-Inland Inc. 1993 Stock Option
Plan (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has authority to amend the Plan;
and



     WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is desirable to amend the Plan’s capital adjustment
provisions;



     NOW, THEREFORE, Article 13 of the Plan is hereby amended as follows:




Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Plan, in the event of any change in the
outstanding Common Stock by reason of any stock dividend, split up, recapitalization,
reclassification, combination or exchange of shares, merger, consolidation or liquidation
and the like, the Board shall provide for a substitution for or adjustment in (i) the
number and class of shares subject to outstanding Stock Options, (ii) the exercise prices
of outstanding Stock Options, (iii) the aggregate number and class of shares reserved for
issuance under the Plan, (iv) the number of shares to be covered by Stock Options to be
granted to Non-Employee Directors upon election to the Board pursuant to paragraph 8
hereof, and (v) the number of shares to be granted to Non-Employee Directors in lieu of
annual retainer fees pursuant to paragraph 9 and the formula pursuant to which the exercise
price of such options is determined. The adjustments made with respect to Stock Options
granted pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 9 hereof shall be equivalent to the treatment accorded
to all other holders of Common Stock. The Board’s determinations with regard to the
adjustments or substitutions provided for by this paragraph 13 shall be conclusive.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Temple-Inland Inc. has caused this First Amendment to the Temple-Inland
Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan to be adopted as of this 4th day of August 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TEMPLE-INLAND INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Leslie K. O’Neal	 	 
	 	 	Vice President, Secretary and Assistant General
Counsel	 	 






ATTEST:




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

Grant F. Adamson

	 	 	 	 
	Assistant Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10854]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993, Joint Research and Development Program for the 
Production of Resistor Packs, Dow Chemical Company/VisPro Corporation

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 29, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Dow Chemical Company 
filed notification simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties 
and (2) the nature and objective of a Joint Research and Development 
Program in the area of computer hard drive, disk drive, substrates. The 
notification was filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions 
limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under 
specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the 
identities of the parties are The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI and 
VisPro Corporation, Beavertown, OR. The nature and objectives of the 
venture are to engage in research and development on a process for the 
efficient manufacture of deslaged substrates of an aluminum-boron-
carbon composite for deposit of magnetic recording medium; with the 
substrates being used for computer, hard disk drives having greater 
memory capacities and improved performance.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-10854 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:* National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Multi-Omics Studies for Osteoporosis.

*Date:* July 9, 2021.

*Time:* 12:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

*Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications.      ( print page 31331)    

*Place:* National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).

*Contact Person:* Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DrPH, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, Tel: 301-402-7704, *mikhaili@mail.nih.gov*.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 7, 2021.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-12235 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# ^'**5514- lews** **CAugr ofjiflP£ALs** 

### h-3te.326!8**-k**

## ferns**78&iq$- 383?** **-' -i** **<-H r-,** **4T***

## Cmstttmml**ASll' CM-** **IQW --^-** **Am Ia/£/T//k&** **/a/ fi£&A£hs** **To TUB** **A£ot'c Cause** 

### Xa**"Me cteKks** **\r /A** 

### or-**£iae/cs fae&tds** **As WOt/10** **Line To** **kfdD(L> \aIho** **AM T6** 

### 73**AM& WHfte** **&tth XT.** **U/OOU #m£Mr£** **tf CM** 

### \JAfil**\O\r- i-ioi.** **rrr:":.! r::** **773 JAN** **2O15 PM** **over**

# of**/W P.** **PS2QS3G3?99**
TERRY  AMISANO  LTD.                                             AMISANO  HANSON
KEVIN  HANSON,  CA                                        CHARTERED  ACCOUNTANTS

     April  26,  2001


     Grant  Thomton  LLP

     701  Pike  Street,  Suite  1500

     Seattle,  Washington  98101-23  1  0


     Ladies  and  Gentlemen:

     We  hereby  consent to the use of our report on the financial statements of
     WTAA  International,  Inc.  December  31,  1999 and for the year then ended
     dated  May  16, 2000, except as to Note 12 (11) which is as of May 17, 2000
     and  as  to  Notes 12 (vil), (vl'll) and (lx) which arc as of May 31, 2000,
     for the purpose of its inclusion in the Company's Form 10- KSB for the year
     ended  December 31, 2000, to be filed with the United States Securities and
     Exchange  Commission.

     Very  truly  yours,

     AMISANO  HANSON


       By:    /s/  Kevin  Hanson        Date:  April 26, 2001
          ----------------------------

       Kevin  R.  Hanson,  C.A.



SUITE 604-750 WEST PENDER STREET                     TELEPHONE (604) 689-0188
VANCOUVER  CANADA                                    FACSIMILE  (604)  689-9773
V6C  2T7                                             E-MAIL:  amishan  telus.net


<PAGE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 18, 2013

t0911

Order 

Clerk

September 18, 2013

146837 & (41)

HARVEY JOHNSON, Personal Representative

of the Estate of Harvey Steward, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146837

COA: 306560

Genesee CC: 09-091432-NO

JEREMY DRIGGETT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2013 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY,

INC.,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

STRONGHOLD ENGINEERING, INC., a

California corporation,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-56062

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-06532-PA-RZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 3, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE, District Judge.

*** 

FILED

JUL 28 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).

 *** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Defendant-appellant Stronghold Engineering, Inc. appeals the district court’s

award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff-appellee Independent Electric Supply, Inc.

(“IES”), following IES’s acceptance of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer

of judgment. The offer allowed entry of judgment against Stronghold in the

amount of “$50,000 plus all court costs and reasonable attorney fees (as

determined by the Court) . . . .” Upon IES’s acceptance, the district court entered

judgment in accordance with Stronghold’s offer of judgment. IES then moved the

district court to set reasonable attorney’s fees. Stronghold thereafter objected to

IES’s motion for attorney’s fees, contending that IES was not entitled to attorney’s

fees for six of its seven claims as a matter of law. The district court ultimately

awarded IES the entire amount it sought in fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo issues involving the interpretation of

Rule 68 offers of judgment. See Erdman v. Cochise Cnty., Ariz., 926 F.2d 877,

879 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm the district court’s award.

We conclude that Stronghold’s offer of judgment was unambiguous and

plainly allowed for the entry of reasonable attorney’s fees. Indeed, the offer’s

language specified that the only question left to be resolved was the reasonableness

of a fee award, not the existence of such an award. Stronghold contends that the

language of the offer did not compel a fee award, but rather reserved to it the right

2
to oppose IES’s claim for any award. We disagree, concluding that the language

was clear on its face and entitled IES to attorney’s fees. In any event, had the

language been ambiguous, that ambiguity would be construed against Stronghold,

as “defendants are the master of what their Rule 68 offers offer.” Nusom v. Comh

Woodburn, Inc., 122 F.3d 830, 833 (9th Cir. 1997). The language drafted by

Stronghold permitted it to challenge only the reasonableness of the fees sought by

IES -- a challenge Stronghold chose not to pursue.

AFFIRMED.

3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1180

DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GLENN SPIVEY, Trenton Town Clerk and Custodian

of Public Records; SHERI M. DAVENPORT, Former

Town Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:05-mc-00009-H)

Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Johnson Willis appeals the district court orders

not granting him approval to file a complaint pursuant to the

court’s order enjoining him from filing complaints without prior

approval of the court and denying his motion for reconsideration.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and

affirm for the reasons of the district court. See Willis v.

Spivey, No. 4:05-mc-00009-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2005; Feb. 3, 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Jackson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J., at hearing; Richard Carruthers, J., at trial and sentence), rendered November 13, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of two robberies, one week apart, in each of which he displayed what appeared to be a gun. He was apprehended after a chase after committing the second robbery. When the imitation gun defendant had discarded was recovered, he stated, "damn, the gun.” Later, after receiving the *Miranda*warnings, he gave a signed incriminatory statement. On appeal, defendant claims that the evidence at the suppression hearing did not prove the voluntariness of his statements beyond a reasonable doubt. The record, however, establishes that the statements were freely and voluntarily given. The court found the testimony of the police officers with respect to the surrounding circumstances to be credible. On the other hand, it found defendant’s testimony that his incriminating statement was the result of 150 blows to the body and head and 100 blows to the body by a rubber hose to be incredible. The hearing court’s factual determination is entitled to great weight. *(People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759.) Moreover, there was no showing of any bruises, swelling or bleeding in the photographs taken immediately after the statement was taken. Thus, the circumstances surrounding the statement do not support defendant’s claim of involuntariness.

Defendant also faults the court’s charge of reasonable doubt. This contention has not been preserved as a matter of law and we therefore decline to reach it. Were we to consider it, in the interests of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding it to be without merit, since the charge, taken as a whole, conveyed the proper standard.

Finally, the sentence was not excessive and should not be disturbed. No abuse of discretion has been shown. *(People v Junco,*43 AD2d 266, 268, *affd*35 NY2d 419, *cert denied*421 US 951.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5857 

To provide that no Federal funds may be used for the U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement Secure Docket Card Program, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. VAN DREW (for himself, Mr. FALLON, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. HIGGINS of 

Louisiana, Mr. NEHLS, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. HUNT, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. 

POSEY, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. GUEST, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BUCHANAN, and 

Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that no Federal funds may be used for the 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Secure 

Docket Card Program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘No IDs for Illegals 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5857 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ICE SECURE DOCKET 

2 CARD PROGRAM. 

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Fed4 eral funds may be used to establish, implement, or other5 wise support the activities of the U.S. Immigration and 

6 Customs Enforcement Secure Docket Card Program, or 

7 any other similar program of the Department of Home8 land Security. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of Nancy Shubert, Appellant, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, Respondent.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.), entered March 13, 1989, which dismissed a petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul a determination of respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) dated August 31, 1988 which found petitioner’s premises subject to rent stabilization regulations as to future tenancies, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s unilateral action in combining apartments, thereby reducing the number of residential units from seven to five subsequent to the base date for rent stabilization purposes, cannot effect an exemption from the pertinent regulations *(see,*Administrative Code of City of New York § 26-504 [Rent Stabilization Law]; Emergency Tenant Protection Act § 5 [a] [4] [L 1974, ch 576, § 4]; 9 NYCRR 2520.11). Such a result would be inconsistent with the purposes underlying the legislation regulating rents for multiple dwellings *(see, Matter of Jaffe v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*index No. 17817/86, Sup Ct, NY County, *affd*144 AD2d 1040; *129 E. 56 St Corp. v Harrison,*115 Misc 2d 506, 512).

DHCR’s interpretation of the statutes which it administers is accorded great deference *(Matter of Salvati v Eimicke,*72 NY2d 784), and a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency *(Matter of Mid-State Mgt. Corp. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd.,*112 AD2d 72, *affd*66 NY2d 1032). The administrative determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was based on substantial evidence. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit
      10.2

    


    Amendment
      No. 1 to

    November
      12, 2004 Employment Agreement

    


    AGREEMENT
      made this 31st day of October, 2006 between CONMED Corporation and Joseph J.
      Corasanti as follows:

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company and Joseph J. Corasanti have agreed to amend the provisions of
      his
      Employment Contract.

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of One Dollar and all other good and valuable
      consideration the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:

     

    
      	
              1.

            	
              Effective
                January 1, 2007, Section 1 of the Employment Contract is amended
                in its
                entirety to provide as follows:

            


    

     

    “The
      Company hereby agrees that you will be employed to serve as President and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company during the remaining term of employment set
      forth in Section 2 of this Agreement. You hereby agree to serve, effective
      January 1, 2007, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company during
      such term of employment.”

     

    
      	
              2.

            	
              Effective
                January 1, 2007, the following shall be added at the end of the first
                sentence of Section 4(a) of the Employment
                Contract:

            


    

     

    “,
      provided, that after January 1, 2007 such annual base salary shall be at a
      rate
      of at least $450,000.”

     

    
      	
              3.

            	
              Effective
                January 1, 2007, the following shall be added at the end of the first
                sentence of the second paragraph of Section 4(b) of the Employment
                Contract:

            


    

     

    “,
      provided that beginning on December 31, 2007 and each subsequent December 31
      during the term of this Agreement, such amount credited shall be $150,000.”


     

     

     

    
      	 	 	
              CONMED
                CORPORATION

            
	 	 	 
	
              /s/
                Joseph J. Corasanti

            	 	
              By:

            	
              /s/
                Daniel S. Jonas

            
	
              Joseph
                J. Corasanti

            	 	 	
              Daniel
                S. Jonas
EXHIBIT 32

<PAGE>

      In connection with the quarterly report of New Taohuayuan Culture Tourism
Co., Ltd., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") Cai Danmei, the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of her
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
               operation of the company.


August 16, 2010                        By:  /s/ Cai Danmei
                                           -----------------------------------
                                             Cai Danmei, Principal Executive
                                          and Principal Financial Officer