alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.13


 


NASH-FINCH COMPANY

1997 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN


(2003 REVISION)


 


Second
Declaration of Amendment


 


Pursuant to the retained
power of amendment contained in Section 6.1 of the instrument entitled “Nash
Finch Company 1997 Non-Employee Director Stock Compensation Plan (2003
Revision)” (the “Plan”), the undersigned hereby amends such Plan effective December 27,
2004 to provide that there may be no new participants in the Plan after December 31,
2004, that no election may be made under the Plan to defer Director Cash
Compensation with respect to any Plan Year beginning after December 31,
2004, and that no Director Cash Compensation may be deferred under the Plan
after December 31, 2004, with the timing of any deferral determined in a
manner consistent with Internal Revenue Code section 409A and the
regulations, rulings and guidance issued thereunder by the U.S. Treasury
Department and the Internal Revenue Service. 
Specific provisions of the Plan are amended in the manner described
below.


 


1.                                       The first two
sentences of Section 2.1(b) are amended to read as follows:


 


“(b)                           Each individual
who is a Qualified Director on the first day of a calendar year that begins
prior to December 31, 2004 is eligible to make deferral elections pursuant
to Section 3.3 with respect to such calendar year.  An individual who becomes a Qualified
Director after the first day of a calendar year that begins prior to December 31,
2004 is eligible to make deferral elections pursuant to Section 3.3 with
respect to the remainder of such calendar year.”


 


4.                                       Section 3.3(b) is amended to read as
follows:


 


“(b)                           With respect to services to be performed
during a calendar year that begins prior to December 31, 2004, a Qualified
Director may elect to defer all or any portion of his or her Director Cash
Compensation relating to his or her services as a Qualified Director during
such calendar year.  Any portion so
elected will automatically apply to the Qualified Director’s Director Cash
Compensation as adjusted from time to time during such calendar year.”


5.                                       The introductory clause of Section 7.11
is amended to read as follows:


 


“‘Director Cash Compensation’
means all amounts payable in cash by the Company to a Qualified Director for
his or her services to the Company as a Qualified
Director during any calendar year that begins prior to December 31, 2004,”.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized
officers this 27th day of December, 2004.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  NASH FINCH COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attest:

  	
     /s/  John
  A. Haveman

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
     Kathleen
  E. McDermott

  
	
   

  	
   Assistant Secretary

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice President

  
					



 


1
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Second
Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Second Amendment”) is made by and between Inteliquent, Inc. (f/k/a Neutral Tandem, Inc. and referred to herein as the “Company”) and G. Edward Evans (the
“Executive”). This Second Amendment is made as of May 8, 2014. 
 BACKGROUND 

A. The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated April 1, 2011 (as amended, the “Agreement”). 

B. The parties wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the following change. 

THE AGREEMENT 
 The
parties agree as follows: 
 1. Definitions. All capitalized terms not defined in this Second Amendment have the same meanings given
to those terms in the Agreement. 
 2. Section 2.2. Section 2.2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following: 
  

	 	2.2	 Bonus. The Executive will be eligible to receive an annual bonus in respect of each calendar year during the term of this Agreement in the form of a cash payment of 75% of Executive’s base salary in
the applicable calendar year (or such greater percentage as the Board may determine). Any bonus will be based on the extent to which Executive achieves performance goals to be established by the Board from time to time in consultation with the
Executive. The Company will pay Executive’s bonus, if any, no later than March 15 in the calendar year following the calendar year to which the bonus relates. No bonus shall be deemed to have been earned by Executive for any calendar year
in which the Executive is not actively employed as of December 31 of the calendar year to which the bonus relates. 

 3.
Section References. Section titles used in this Second Amendment have no substantive meaning and are not a part of the parties’ agreement. 

4. Successors and Assigns. This Second Amendment is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of
the parties. 
 5. Entire Agreement. Except as expressly modified by this Second Amendment, the Agreement is and will remain in full
force and effect in accordance with its terms and constitutes the legal and binding obligations of the Company and Executive. This Second Amendment, including the Agreement, is the complete agreement of the parties and supersedes any prior
agreements or representations, whether oral or written, with respect to the subject matter of this Second Amendment 







 The Company and Executive have executed this Second Amendment as of the date set forth above.

  

									
	Inteliquent, Inc.	  		  	G. Edward Evans
					
	By:	  	 /s/ Richard L. Monto
	  		  	By:	  	 /s/ G. Edward Evans

	Name:	  	Richard L. Monto	  		  		  	
	Title:	  	General Counsel and Secretary	  		  		  	


  
 2
#### In the Matter of the Final Accounting of Norman S. Goetz, as Committee of the Person and Property of Henry Kaufmann, an Incompetent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 17, 1957.

*Louis A. Jaffee*and *Charles Looker*for petitioner.

*Robert J. McGinn*for National Surety Corporation.

*Max Bloom,*referee.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

This is a final accounting by the committee of a deceased incompetent. The Referee was appointed to take and state the account and report thereon (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1381 [4]; *Matter of Hubbard,*68 N. Y. S. 2d 739). The report of the Referee has been filed recommending that the account be settled as filed.

*682The only matter which gave me pause is the question of the computation of the committee’s commissions, on which the Referee has made an uncontested recommendation. The committee made sales of securities at a gain, and other sales at a loss, as compared with the value of the securities when received by the committee. The Referee recommended that receiving commissions be allowed on the realized gains without regard to the realized losses. The Referee reports the conflict of authority on the issue *(Matter of*Corning, 160 Misc. 434; *Matter of Wilson, 167*Misc. 758; *Matter of Witkind, 167*Misc. 885; *Matter of Hutchinson,*175 Misc. 175; *Matter of Pratt,*172 Misc. 756). In addition to the precedents he cites, *pro*and *eon,*it should be noted that, in *Matter of Wallace,*Surrogate Delehanty held (N. Y. L. J., Aug. 10, 1937, p. 360, col. 3) that the *“*surrogates of this [New York] county have not followed the rule announced in *Matter of Corning*(160 Misc. 434). The court holds that receiving commissions may be computed on realized gains in the sale of capital assets even though loss may have been incurred in the sale of other assets ”.

The commissions are fixed by statute, and are to be computed on what is “ received ” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1376; Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 285). The committee “ received ” the realized gains on the sale of some assets whether or not there was later a loss on the sales of other assets. If the Legislature wanted to change the rule in New York County and to make it uniform throughout the State, it could very readily have so amended the statute in the last 20 years, and certainly when, quite recently, it changed the schedule of fiduciary commissions generally (L. 1956, ch. 54). And in *Matter of Lee*(3 Misc 2d 1072, 1080) I expressed the view that “ there should be no differentiation between the rulings of the Supreme Court and those of the Surrogate’s Court in determining [the] compensation [of testamentary trustees] ”. This principle should, I think, also apply to the compensation to be awarded trustees named in *inter vivos*instruments or to committees of incompetents.

Accordingly, an order has been signed, granting petitioner’s motion to confirm the referee’s report, settling the final account, and fixing commissions, fees and expenses as suggested by the Referee, and with resnect to which no objection has been interposed.
#### Stephen J. POLLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 118 EAST 60TH OWNERS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2-7.

Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.

Dec. 12, 1972.

*1403David Simon, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Alfred A. Rosen, New York City, for defendants-appellees, William Gould and Louise Gould.

Before HASTIE, ANDERSON and HASTINGS, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is the apparent culmination of a series of dilatory legal proceedings designed to delay the eviction of the appellant from an apartment in New York City.

Following administrative proceedings before the New York City Rent Commission, an eviction proceeding in the Civil Court of the City of New York

which was interrupted by three interlocutory appeals by the tenant, Pollack, an unsuccessful appeal by Pollack to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York and denials by both the Appellate Term and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of leave to appeal to the Appellate Division, Pollack filed this action in the Southern District of New York. He prayed for a declaratory judgment that the defendants had violated the Economic Stabilization Act, the Regulations and Executive Order No. 11627; an order enjoining the defendants from enforcing the judgment of eviction they had obtained from the State court and for damages in the amount of $25,000. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order, but two weeks later vacated that order and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We are advised that Pollack has vacated the premises which were the subject of the complaint, thus all issues relating to injunctive relief are moot. The dispute out of which this litigation arises developed on or before May 1, 1970 and was the subject of State administrative proceedings long before August 15, 1971, the effective date of Executive Order No. 11627 which established Federal rent controls. Counsel has not demonstrated and we cannot visualize any theory within the facts here presented under which Pollack can claim to be a “person suffering legal wrong because of any act or practice arising out of [The Economic Stabilization Act] or any order or regulation issued pursuant thereto, . . . ” § 210(a) Economic Stabilization Act, as amended, Public Law 92-210, December 22, 1971.

This case has been assigned to the summary calendar by the Chief Judge pursuant to Rules 24 and 27 of the Rules of this court for summary disposition without oral argument. Counsel have been advised of that calendar assignment. •

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the March 1,
1997, financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-1997
<CASH>                                            8509
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     386812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                461778
<PP&E>                                          787318
<DEPRECIATION>                                  285808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1297330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           285189
<BONDS>                                         664572
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      40600
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                      240663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1297330
<SALES>                                         487550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                488755
<CGS>                                           348247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   348247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               16055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (26758)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (18623)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8135)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8135)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 17, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-1821

Lower Tribunal No. 04-13073

________________

Jose Cisneros-Gonzalez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William

Thomas, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant

Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay E. Silver, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

LOGUE, J.
A jury convicted Jose Cisneros-Gonzalez of kidnapping, sexual battery, and

attempted second-degree murder. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the

trial court failed to conduct an adequate Nelson1 hearing; and (2) whether the trial

court fundamentally erred when it instructed the jurors that intent to kill was an

element of attempted voluntary manslaughter.

Finding no error on the first issue, we affirm Cisneros-Gonzalez’s

convictions of sexual battery and kidnapping. However, based on the State’s

proper confession of error pursuant to Griffin v. State, 160 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2015),

we reverse and remand for a new trial on the attempted second-degree murder

conviction. Like the defendant in Griffin, the defendant here was convicted of a

crime one step removed from the erroneous manslaughter instruction, and he did

not concede the issue of intent.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for a new trial on the

attempted second-degree murder charge.

1 Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6427 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6427

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the 
   boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Boundary Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

    Section 3(a)(1) of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act 
(Public Law 106-300; 114 Stat. 1055) is amended by striking ``map 
entitled `Red River National Wildlife Refuge--Selection Area', dated 
September 5, 2000'' and inserting ``map entitled `Red River National 
Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary' and dated March 21, 2022''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6427

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the 
   boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 653 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 653

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 
              coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2021

 Mr. Huffman (for himself, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, 
Ms. Brownley, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DelBene, Mr. 
 DeSaulnier, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. 
Khanna, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Levin of California, 
 Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McNerney, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Norton, 
Mr. Panetta, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Schrader, Mr. Sherman, 
  Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms. Speier, and Mr. Takano) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 
the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 
              coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

    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 ``West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 
              SHELF OFF THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND 
              WASHINGTON.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue 
a lease for the exploration, development, or production of oil or 
natural gas in any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of 
the State of California, Oregon, or Washington.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 transition report on Form 10-K/A in accordance with Rule 15(d)-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Red Trail Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the nine month transition period ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kent Anderson, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|   |                                                                                                                                  
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 Company.




/s/ Kent AndersonKent AndersonChief Financial OfficerDated: June 26, 2012
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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;
and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting 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.
  /s/ Cary D. Brown

Cary D. BrownChief Executive Officer and Chairman of theBoard of Legacy Reserves GP, LLC,general partner of Legacy Reserves LP(Principal Executive Officer)