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










Exhibit No. (10)s






1ST AMENDMENT TO
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION
2011 EQUITY PARTICIPATION PLAN
(Amended and restated effective April 21, 2011)


Effective as of February 12, 2020


WHEREAS, Kimberly-Clark Corporation (the “Corporation”) previously adopted the Kimberly-Clark Corporation 2011 Equity Participation Plan (the “Plan”) as its broad-based equity participation plan intended to aid in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel and to encourage those employees who materially contribute, by managerial, scientific or other innovative means to the success of the Corporation or an Affiliate (as those terms are defined in the Plan), to acquire an ownership interest in the Corporation, thereby increasing their motivation for and interest in the Corporation’s or Affiliates’ long-term success; 
WHEREAS, the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Committee”) determined that it is advisable and in the best interests of the Corporation and its stockholders to amend the Plan as proposed and presented to the Committee at its meeting on February 12, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Plan provides that Committee may at any time amend the Plan in certain circumstances and such terms of the proposed amendment were reviewed and approved by the Committee to be effective as of February 12, 2020.
WHEREBY, Section 13 of the Plan has been amended by the Committee in its entirety to read as follows: 
13.  VESTING
No Award denominated in shares of Common Stock that is granted on or after February 12, 2020 may vest in less than one year from its date of grant.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) Awards with respect to up to 5% of the available shares of Common Stock authorized for issuance under the Plan as of February 12, 2020 may vest (in full or in part) in less than one year from their date of grant; and (b) nothing in this Section 13 shall limit the Corporation’s ability to grant Awards that contain rights to accelerated vesting on a termination of employment or limit any rights to accelerated vesting in connection with a shutdown or divestiture of all or a portion of the Corporation’s or its Affiliate’s business or following a Change of Control of the Corporation and shall not limit the changes in capitalization provisions of Section 17.
WHEREBY, all other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent modified by the foregoing.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4191 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4191

  To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a 
study of the effect on payments under Medicare where certain inpatient 
             services are replaced by outpatient services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 1996

  Mr. Stark introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a 
study of the effect on payments under Medicare where certain inpatient 
             services are replaced by outpatient services.

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

SEC. 1. STUDY AND REPORT TO CONGRESS.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
conduct a study of coverage for outpatient services in lieu of 
inpatient services under the Medicare program. Such study shall include 
an analysis of--
            (1) the cost of providing to a Medicare beneficiary 
        outpatient drug benefits and coverage for supplies, appliances, 
        equipment, laboratory tests and nursing services required for 
        appropriate outpatient treatment in lieu of continued 
        hospitalization;
            (2) whether payments under part A of the Medicare program 
        may be reduced if a Medicare beneficiary is provided the 
        outpatient services described in paragraph (1), including any 
        duplicate payments made for a Medicare beneficiary who is 
        transferred from a hospital to a nursing facility, intermediate 
        care facility, or other post-hospital care facility;
            (3) potential savings to the Medicare program if a Medicare 
        beneficiary is provided the outpatient services described in 
        paragraph (1), including savings with respect to the decreased 
        probability of nosocomial infections due to shortened inpatient 
        stays; and
            (4) how any such outpatient services should be reimbursed 
        so as to ensure cost savings.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
Congress on the study under subsection (a) and shall include in the 
report such recommendations with respect to coverage of outpatient 
services in lieu of inpatient services under the Medicare program as 
the Secretary deems appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-081-CV

IN RE OLIVER JAY LEWIS	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  See In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (holding that because determination of whether default judgment is proper is discretionary, mandamus to compel entry of default judgment is not appropriate); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 124, 239 (providing that trial court cannot enter default judgment unless defendant has been served).2  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and McCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  March 25, 2004
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.V., a Child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2495

[November 10, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Gregory M. Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2019-CJ001944-XXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. 

Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fred Douglas COSTON, Appellant.

No. 72-1853.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 6, 1972.

George Minor, Jr., Portsmouth, Va. (court-appointed counsel, on brief), for appellant.

Brian P. Gettings, U. S. Atty. for Eastern District of Virginia, and Roger

T. Williams, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief, for appellee.

Before BUTZNER, RUSSELL and FIELD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Fred Douglas Coston appeals from his conviction, after a plea of guilty, of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U. S.C. § 5861. Coston contends that the weapon he possessed, a Blair Flare gun which he had loaded with a shotgun shell, was not a “firearm” within the meaning of the Act. The weapon, which had a length of 5% inches and a smooth bore, proved capable of being used as a shotgun when test-fired. These physical characteristics and firing capability made the weapon a firearm within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 5845. *Cf.*United States v. Shafer, 445 F.2d 579, 583 (7th *1154Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 986, 92 S.Ct. 448, 30 L.Ed.2d 370 (1971); United States v. Williams, 427 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 909, 91 S.Ct. 154, 27 L.Ed.2d 149 (1970).

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 606 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 606

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 29 (legislative day, March 27), 1995

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 201(b) of 
the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
419, approved October 16, 1992), is amended as follows:
            (1) In paragraph (2), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
            (2) In paragraph (4), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
            (3) In paragraph (5), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
            (4) In paragraph (6), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
            (5) In paragraph (7), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 28, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Filed: January 7, 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6221 (CR-89-391-JFM, CA-95-3272-JFM) United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus Colbert Toliver, Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER The Court amends its opinion filed October 23, 1996, as follows: On the cover sheet, section 3, line 3 -- the district court's number is corrected to read "CR-89- 3 91-JFM." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6221 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus COLBERT TOLIVER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-391-JFM, CA-95-3272-JFM) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 23, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Colbert Toliver, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Toliver , Nos. CR-89-891- JFM; CA-95-3272-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 8, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT  SECTION 1  NAME OF CORPORATION (as currently recorded with the Office of the Secretary of State)  Animal Cloning Sciences, Inc.  SECTION 2  AMENDMENTS were adopted on this DATE:  SECTION 3  ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT WERE ADOPTED BY: (please check one of the following)  X Board of Directors (shareholder action was not required)  Duly approved by shareholders in accordance with 23B.10.030 and 23B.10.040 RCW  Incorporators (shareholder action was not required)  SECTION 4  AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES ON FILE:  Change name of the corporation to Bancorp Energy, Inc.  SECTION 5  EFFECTIVE DATE OF ARTCILES OF AMENDMENT:  X Upon filing by the Secretary of State  Specific Date:  SECTION 6  SIGNATURE (see instructions page) This document is hereby executed under penalties of perjury, and is, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct.   X /s/ Dempsey K Mork, CEO
EXHIBIT 21.1

 

**Subsidiaries of Company**

 

| **Name of Subsidiary** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------|

| Star Circuits, Inc. | South Dakota |
|---------------------|--------------|

| MSC Technologies, Inc. | South Dakota |
|------------------------|--------------|

| Daktronics Media Holdings, Inc. | South Dakota |
|---------------------------------|--------------|

| Daktronics Canada, Inc. | Canada |
|-------------------------|--------|

| Daktronics, GmbH | Germany |
|------------------|---------|

| Daktronics UK, Ltd | Great Britain |
|--------------------|---------------|

| Daktronics Hong Kong Ltd | Hong Kong |
|--------------------------|-----------|

| Daktronics Shanghai Ltd | Peoples Republic of China |
|-------------------------|---------------------------|

| Daktronics France SARL | France |
|------------------------|--------|

| Daktronics Beijing | Peoples Republic of China |
|--------------------|---------------------------|

| Daktronics Hoist, Inc. | New York |
|------------------------|----------|

| Daktronics Australia PTY LTD | Australia |
|------------------------------|-----------|
Exhibit 10.3

January 11, 2007

Mr. B. Curtis Westen

[ADDRESS]

[ADDRESS]

Dear Curt:

The purpose of this letter agreement is to amend your Employment Letter Agreement (the Letter Agreement) dated as of June 28, 2006 by and between you and
Health Net, Inc. (the Company). as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Letter Agreement. Except as set forth below, all other terms of the Letter Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.

Paragraph 1, Section A is hereby amended and restated as follows:

Employment and Title. Unless your employment is earlier terminated pursuant to Section 4 hereof, you will continue to be employed by the Company and hold the
title of Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary until February 1, 2007. February 1, 2007 will be referred to as the Transition Date. Following the Transition Date, you will continue to be employed full time until
July 31, 2007 (the Termination Date) by the Company as Senior Vice President and Special Counsel, unless your employment is earlier terminated pursuant to Section 4 hereof.

In order to confirm your agreement with the Company and your acceptance of these terms, please sign one copy of this letter and return it to me.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Very truly yours,                    
|                                     
|/s/ Jay M. Gellert                   
|Jay M. Gellert                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer

This will confirm my agreement to the amendment set forth above.



|                     |  |        
|-------------------- |  | -------
|                     | 
|/s/ B. Curtis Westen |  | 1-11-07
|B. Curtis Westen     |  | Date   



|    |  |                                    
|--- |  | -----------------------------------
|cc: |  | Karin Mayhew                       
|    |  | D.Colia  for Westen personnel file
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                 Certification of Chief Executive Officer under
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         I hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of O'Sullivan
Industries Holdings, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and that the information contained in such annual report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc.



Date: September 25, 2002                            /s/ Phillip J. Pacey
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                        Phillip J. Pacey
                                                      Senior Vice President
                                                  and Chief Financial Officer
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1730

___________ Associated Contract Loggers, Inc.; * Olson Logging, Inc., * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota United States Forest Service; Superior * Wilderness Action Network; Forest * Guardians, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * *

__________________ * * Koochiching County; The Northern * Counties Land Use Coordinating * Board, * * Amici Curiae. *

___________ Submitted: March 16, 2001 Filed: June 5, 2001

___________ Before MURPHY, LAY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 TheHonorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

2 The Forest Service's motion to strike portions of Amici's brief is denied. -2- Plaintiffs, Associated Contract Loggers, Inc. and Olson Logging Inc., filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota 1 against the United States Forest Service and two not-for-profit groups, Forest Guardians and Superior Wilderness Action Network. Plaintiffs allege a violation of the Establishment Clause. Thedistrict court dismissed the suit on defendants’ motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The plaintiffs now appeal. Amici curiae Koochiching County and The NorthernCounties Land Use Coordinating Board have submitted a joint brief in support of plaintiffs' position. 2 Finding that no error of law appears in the district court's opinion, and that further opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm without discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








The undersigned, Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer, and Trupti Mehta, Principal Financial Officer, of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





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


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





Dated:     October 15, 2010


By:  /s/ Juhani Taskinen


Juhani Taskinen


Chief Executive Officer





October 15, 2010


By:  /s/Trupti Mehta


Principal Financial Officer





* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6840

LARRY GARY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. E. DAVID; R. L. HOPPER; R. H. SIZEMORE; B. S. DOBBS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-572-1) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 27, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Gary, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Fred Thurman Hamlet, Sr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry Gary, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. In the briefing order, Gary was warned that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See Local R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Gary’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s finding that he had filed his complaint outside the three-year limitations period, but instead addresses the merits of his claims. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form  S-8 (No.  333-68801,  No.  333-62767,  No.  333-85556,  No.
333-07409,  No. 333-13887 and No. 333-62767) and in the Registration  Statements
on Form S-3 (No. 333-63991,  No. 333-11391,  No. 333-23317 and No. 333-63891) of
Oryx Technology  Corp. of our report dated May 3, 2002 relating to the financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-KSB.



/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
May 29, 2002
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Northrop Grumman Corporation ) ASBCA No. 61758

)

Under Contract No. FA8528

- 11

- C

- 0003 et al

. )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Stephen J. McBrady, Esq.

Charles Baek, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq.

Trial Attorney

Defense Contract Management Agency

Carson, CA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 22 , 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61758

, Appeal of Northrop

Grumman Corporation , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 22, 2020 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals