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










INSTRUMENT OF AMENDMENT TO THE
MDU RESOURCES GROUP, INC. 
401(k) RETIREMENT PLAN


The MDU Resources Group, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan (as amended and restated January 1, 2017) (the “K-Plan”), is hereby further amended as follows:


Effective as of January 1, 2018, by adding the following subsection (b) to the end of Section 3.3 Matching Contributions:
		
	(b)
	Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section 3.3 and any related Schedule to the contrary, in accordance with Treasury Regulation §1.401(a)(4)-11(g) (the “Treasury Regulation”), effective as of January 1, 2018 and continuing through the period required pursuant to such Treasury Regulation, the following Participants shall receive an additional Employer standard matching contribution equal to the amount determined to be necessary to comply with the requirements of IRC §401(a)(4) and the Treasury Regulations thereunder:


	
			
	 
	 
	 

	XXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
	XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
	XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, MDU Resources Group, Inc., as sponsoring employer of the K-Plan has caused this amendment to be duly executed by a member of the MDU Resources, Group, Inc. Employee Benefits Committee on this 15th day of October 2019.


MDU RESOURCES GROUP, INC. 
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE 




By:  /s/ Jason L. Vollmer  
        Jason L. Vollmer, Chairman
exv4wee






THE UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK

OPTIONAL GUARANTEED LIVING BENEFIT

EXTENSION ENDORSEMENT DATA PAGE



Notwithstanding any provision in the Contract or Certificate (“Contract”) to the contrary, this
Extension Endorsement Data Page becomes a part of the Contract to which it is attached. Should any
provision in this Extension Endorsement Data Page conflict with the Contract, the provisions of
this Extension Endorsement Data Page will prevail.



Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Optional Guaranteed Living Benefit
Endorsement, the terms of this Extension Endorsement Data Page replace the corresponding terms of
the Endorsement Data Page of the original Optional Guaranteed Living Benefit Endorsement.




	 	 	 

	COVERED PERSON(S):

	 	[John Doe] ¬1
	 
	 	 
	ENDORSEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE:

	 	[November 1, 2013] ¬1
	 
	 	 
	EXTENSION AVAILABILITY DATE:

	 	[November 1, 2018] ¬1
	 
	 	 
	ENDORSEMENT FEE:

	 	Annual fee of [1.25%]¬2 of the
Income Base deducted quarterly from
Contract Value allocated to the
Variable Portfolio(s) or Subaccount(s)
beginning one quarter following the
Endorsement Effective Date and ending
on the termination of this Endorsement
	 
	 	 
	INCOME BASE EVALUATION PERIOD:

	 	Beginning on the Endorsement Effective
Date and ending [5]¬3 years
later
	 
	 	 
	[ [GROSS] INCOME CREDIT PERCENTAGE:

	 	[6%]¬4
	 
	 	 
	INCOME CREDIT PERIOD:

	 	Beginning on the Endorsement Effective
Date and ending [5] ¬3 years
later
	 
	 	 
	INCOME CREDIT AVAILABILITY:

	 	At the end of each Benefit Year during
the Income Credit Period [if
Withdrawals were not taken during the
previous Benefit Year] ¬5]
¬6





Signed for the Company to be effective on the Endorsement Effective Date.




	 	 	 

	

	 	 





FSE-6231E-V
(8/13)


1
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ J. Hicks LanierJ. Hicks LanierChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)December 10, 2009/s/ K. Scott GrassmyerK. Scott GrassmyerSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller(Principal Financial Officer)December 10, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1662

TORNELLO FONTAINE PIERCE EL BEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROY COOPER; PAT MCCRORY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JAMES 

ALLEN JOINES; SHERIFF WILLIAM T. SCHATZMAN; BJ BARNS, a/k/a 

Eschol Edward Barnes, Jr.; NANCY VAUGHAN,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:15-cv-00539-FDW-DCK)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. 

Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North 

Carolina; James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, 

PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Lonnie Glenn Albright, III, 

FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, James Demarest Secor, III, 

James Anthony Clark, Associate General Counsel, Polly D. 

Sizemore, CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing his complaint without 

prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

56 (1949). We conclude that the order Pierce El Bey seeks to 

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory 

or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 

Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 629-30 (4th Cir. 2015). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and 

remand to the district court with instructions to allow Pierce 

El Bey to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         310,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,632,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,809,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   150,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,223,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,524,000
<PP&E>                                       4,481,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,152,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,106,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,704,000
<BONDS>                                      3,815,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       908,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,181,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,106,000
<SALES>                                      8,396,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,396,000
<CGS>                                        4,901,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,901,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,664,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                894,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            894,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   894,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington D. C.  20549



FORM 10-Q


Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


For the Quarter Ended September 30, 1997  Commission File No. 1-5591


                  PENNZOIL COMPANY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


             Delaware                          74-1597290
(State or other jurisdiction of          (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)           Identification No.)


Pennzoil Place, P.O. Box 2967
Houston, Texas 77252-2967
(Address of principal executive offices)




EXHIBIT


<PAGE>





                        PENNZOIL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                 INDEX TO EXHIBITS


Exhibit No.
-----------


         12    Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges for the nine
               months ended September 30, 1997 and 1996.

         27    Financial Data Schedule


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      560
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,607
<PP&E>                                           3,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,298
<BONDS>                                          2,060
<COMMON>                                           662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              503
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,085)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,222
<SALES>                                          1,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,137
<CGS>                                              938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (71)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  37
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      2
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (7)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  8
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         8
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
#### Armance STOUTES, wife of Adrien Thibodeaux, v. TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD CO. et al.

No. 2324.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 18, 1942.

A. Wilmot Dalferes, of Lafayette, for appellant.

James J. Martin and E. L. Guidry, both of St. Martinville, for ^appellees.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Adrien Thibodeaux et al. v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company et al., 6 So.2d 224, this dayt handed down, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40323 Summary Calendar

ROBERT W. HURT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SPECIAL INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-00-CV-372

-------------------- January 10, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert W. Hurt appeals the district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of his lawsuit seeking disability and medical benefits under an occupational-accident insurance policy his employer, Winter Maintenance & Landscaping, Inc. (“Winter Maintenance”), held with Special Insurance Services, Inc. (“SIS”). Although he does not specifically challenge the district court’s reasons for granting summary judgment dismissing his claims, he does so indirectly by renewing his claim that SIS wrongfully denied him benefits. The claims were properly dismissed for the reasonsNo. 01-40323 -2- explained by the district court, and its judgment is AFFIRMED.
See Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc); Newell v. Oxford Mgmt., Inc. , 912 F.2d 793, 795 (5th Cir. 1990). Hurt argues that the district court’s dismissal was premature because he has new evidence in support of his claims. He refers to this new evidence in his brief, and he has filed a motion to supplement the record with new evidence. The argument will not be considered, and the motion to supplement is DENIED because this court will not review evidence not first submitted to the district court. Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson , 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 529 U.S. 1129 (2000). Hurt also argues that the district court erred in failing to grant him a continuance prior to dismissing his claims. He contends that he was unable to prepare adequately to respond to SIS’s summary-judgment motion due to his medical condition. The argument fails because Hurt never requested that the district court grant him a continuance to respond to SIS’s motion based on his medical condition. The majority of Hurt’s appellate brief is devoted to the argument that he has been the victim of fraud, concealment, negligence, and perjury by Winter Maintenance, SIS, and SIS’s attorneys. He has filed a motion for expedited oral argument renewing his claims of malfeasance, as well as a motion for sanctions. Both motions are DENIED because Hurt’s claims are irrelevant and conclusional. Hurt’s “expedited motion” seekingNo. 01-40323 -3- to have this court order SIS to extend him medical coverage for new operations is similarly DENIED.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00427

- CR

Christian Israel FRANKLIN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR6244

Honorable Frank J. Castro , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED December 1, 2021.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice
SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. 
SHARE OPTION PLAN 
February 28, 2009



OPTION COMMITMENT



Notice is hereby given that, effective this 28th day of February, 2009 (the Effective Date) SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD. (the Company) has granted to Alexander Belford, an Option to acquire 100,000 Common Shares (Optioned Shares) up to 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on the 28th day of February, 2014 (the Expiry Date) at a Exercise Price of US$1.04 per share. Optioned Shares may be acquired as follows:

| |     |                                                                                                               
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (a) | 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest twelve months after the Effective Date;          
| |     |                                                                                                               
| | (b) | a further 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 24 months after the Effective Date; and
| |     |                                                                                                               
| | (c) | the remaining 1/3 of the total number of Optioned Shares granted will vest 36 months after the Effective Date.

The grant of the Optioned Shares evidenced hereby is made subject to the terms and conditions of the Companys Share Option Plan, the terms and conditions of which are hereby incorporated in this Option Commitment.

To exercise your Option, deliver to the Company at its then principal business office, a written notice specifying the number of Optioned Shares you wish to acquire, together with cash or a certified cheque payable to the Company for the aggregate Exercise Price. A certificate for the Optioned Shares so acquired will be issued by the transfer agent as soon as practicable thereafter and will bear a legend stipulating any resale restrictions required under applicable securities laws.



SENTRY PETROLEUM LTD.

President



I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan and agree to be bound by the terms of the Plan. This commitment supersedes any prior Option or commitment made to me.



OPTIONEE

__ALEXANDER BELFORD___________________

Name:       __Alexander Belford__________

Address:    __________________________________

__________________________________







---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00311-CV

TEPHNEY TRAWEEK, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF B.A., A 

MINOR, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM RAY LONG, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

of Hood County (C2018478)

February 25, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was reversible error in the trial court’s summary-judgment order. It is ordered that 

the trial court’s summary-judgment order is reversed and the case is remanded to the 

trial court for further proceedings. 

It is further ordered that appellee William Ray Long shall bear the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
188 La. 741

#### W. P. BAUCUM v. GARRETT MERCANTILE COMPANY et al.

No. 34447.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 2, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1937.

Ralph W. Baucum, of Shreveport, for relator.

Seals & Atkins, of Homer, for respondents.

FOURNET, Justice;

This suit was consolidated, for the purpose of trial in the district court, with the case of Baucum & Kimball v. Garrett Mercantile Company et al., 178 So. 256, this day decided by us, and is an action by W. P. Baucum to recover from the defendants, who sold him 84 bales of cotton “on call,” an alleged balance due of $454.49.

The defenses and legal principles involved in this case are similar to those involved in the case of Baucum & Kimball v. Garrett Mercantile Company et al., supra, and therefore, for the reasons this day assigned in that case, we conclude that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the amount advanced to them by the plaintiff in excess of the sale price of the cotton, plus the amount of “margin” put up by the defendants.

For the reasons assigned, the judgments of the lower court and the Court of Appeal are reversed, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, W. P. Baucum, and against defendants 'Garrett Mercantile Company, J. B. Garrett, J. H. Garrett, and M. C. Baker, in solido, for the sum of $454.49, with 5 per centum interest thereon from judicial demand, and all costs.
#### Timothy Lee WARD, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. ALESE, Corr. Capt., et al., Defendants — Appellees.

No. 01-17400.

D.C. No. CV-98-00344-RCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 11, 2002.

Decided Nov. 6, 2002.

Before BALDOCK,* KLEINFELD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

The district court did not err in granting Appellee Capt. John Alese’s (“Alese”) motion for summary judgment. Appellant Timothy Lee Ward (“Ward”) misread the deadline date to oppose Alese’s motion for summary judgment and thus failed to timely respond. Since Ward’s incarceration did not contribute to his failure to respond, the district court properly denied Ward’s request for an extension. *See Eldridge v. Block,*832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.1987).

The district court did permit Ward to challenge the magistrate judge’s recommendation in lieu of filing an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Ward thus had sufficient opportunity to file a substantive response. Contrary to Ward’s contention, the district court may review-additional evidence in conducting its de *novo*review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation. *Brown v. Roe,*279 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, Ward is unable to establish that the district court abused its discretion.

This Court reviews the deprivation of Eighth Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis. A temporary deprivation of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is insufficient to demonstrate deliberate indifference. *May v. Baldwin,*109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir.1997). Ward has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding deliberate indifference.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, H. Werner Huss, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Integrated Micrometallurgical Systems, Inc.;



2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness  of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.



5.  The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



Date:  September 28, 2006

/s/ H. Werner Huss



H. Werner Huss

President and Chief Executive Officer