alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 

Apache Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan 

Apache Corporation (“Apache”) sponsors the Apache Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Plan”). In section 10.4 of the Plan, Apache
reserved the right to amend the Plan from time to time. Apache hereby exercises that right as follows: 
  

	1.	Replacing section 2.1 of the Plan with the following, effective May 1, 2014. 

  

	 	2.1	Participation – Required Service. 

 An Employee shall be eligible to begin making
Participant Contributions, receiving an allocation of Company Matching Contributions, and earning a Company Discretionary Contribution on the day the Employee first becomes a Covered Employee. 

 

	2.	Replacing the references to “subsection 2.1(a)” in subsection 1.14(e) and paragraph 3.2(c)(i) of the Plan with a reference to “section 2.1,” effective May 1, 2014. 


EXECUTED this 17 day of April, 2014. 
  

			
	APACHE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Margery M. Harris
		 	Margery M. Harris
		 	Executive Vice President, Human Resources
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: JIMMY LEE SWEED ,

R elator

. § § § § No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 341

- C R

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Jimmy Lee Sweed , has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Honorable Bonnie Rangel , Judge of the 171st District Court of El Paso County, Texas, alleging that Respondent has not ruled on a post

- conviction motion filed in cause number 69262

. We deny mandamus relief. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must meet two requirements. First, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance Company of America , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Se cond, the relator must demonstrate that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id . at 13 5

- 3 6. Mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion which has been pending before the court for a reasonable period of time. See In re Shredder Co ., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.

-- El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding);
In re Hearn , 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.App.

-- San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.

- - Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). To obtain mandamus relief for s uch refusal, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been- 2

-

pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. See Shredder Co ., 225 S.W.3d at 679; Hearn , 137 S.W.3d at 685; Chavez , 62 S.W.3d at 228. Relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

STEVEN L . HUGHES, Justice December 11, 2015 Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Do Not Publish)
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Intcomex, Inc.s principal subsidiaries as of December 31,
2007, are listed below. All subsidiaries are 100.0% owned.



|    |  |                                                          |  |               
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|    |  | Subsidiary Name                                          |  | Jurisdiction  
|1.  |  | Intcomex Holdings, LLC                                   |  | Delaware      
|2.  |  | Intcomex Holdings SPC-1, LLC                             |  | Delaware      
|3.  |  | Software Brokers of America, Inc.                        |  | Florida       
|4.  |  | IXLA Holdings, Ltd.                                      |  | Cayman Islands
|5.  |  | Intcomex Argentina SRL                                   |  | Argentina     
|6.  |  | Intcomex S.A.                                            |  | Chile         
|7.  |  | Intcomex Iquique S.A.                                    |  | Chile         
|8.  |  | Sociedad de Inversiones y Financiamiento TC, S.A.        |  | Chile         
|9.  |  | Intcomex Colombia LTDA                                   |  | Colombia      
|10. |  | Intcomex Costa Rica Mayorista en Equipo de Computo, S.A. |  | Costa Rica    
|11. |  | Intcomex de Ecuador, S.A.                                |  | Ecuador       
|12. |  | Hurricane Systems, S.A.                                  |  | Ecuador       
|13. |  | Intcomex El Salvador, S.A.                               |  | El Salvador   
|14. |  | Intcomex de Guatemala, S.A.                              |  | Guatemala     
|15. |  | Intcomex Jamaica Ltd.                                    |  | Jamaica       
|16. |  | Inset Finance Ltd.                                       |  | Cayman Islands
|17. |  | Computación Monrenca Panama, S.A.                        |  | Panama        
|18. |  | Intcomex Peru, S.A.C.                                    |  | Peru          
|19. |  | DTMK Inmobiliaria, S.A.C.                                |  | Peru          
|20. |  | T.G.M., S.A.                                             |  | Uruguay       
|21. |  | Pontix Trading S.A.                                      |  | Uruguay       
|22. |  | Intcomex de Las Americas, S.A.                           |  | Panama        
|23. |  | Centel, S.A. de C.V.                                     |  | Mexico        
|24. |  | Compañía de Servicios IMCS, S. de R.L. de C.V.           |  | Mexico
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         254,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,717,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (256,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,460,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,285,000
<PP&E>                                      22,890,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (19,118,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,739,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,032,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  (344,000)
<COMMON>                                     3,382,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,739,000
<SALES>                                      8,865,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,551,000
<CGS>                                        8,276,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,485,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,089,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,089,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,089,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,089,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6256

UHURU ROWE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MICHAEL CARPENTER; NANCY PERKERSON; TERESA L. B I RCKHEAD; T. DARDEN; GREGORY HALLOWAY , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv
- 00780

- REP )

Submitted : November 2, 2020 Decided: November 19, 2020

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jeffrey E. Fogel, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Victoria N. P e arson, Deputy Attorney General, Laura Maughan, Assistant Attorney General, Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General, Michelle S. Kallen, Deputy Solicitor General, Martine E. Cicconi, Deputy Solicitor General, Jessica Merry Samuels, Assistant Solicitor General, Zachary R. Glubiak, John Marshall Fellow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Uhuru Rowe appeals the district court’s order granting the Appellees’ motion to
dismiss a nd dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rowe v. Carpenter , No. 3:18

- cv
- 00780

- REP (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2020). We dispense with oral

argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-13-00788- CV
J. F .-W., Appellant
v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 353 RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 12- 0063 08, H ONO RAB LE RHO NDA HURLEY , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant J .F.- W. has informed this Court that he no longe r wishes to pursue this appea l and has filed a motion to dismiss it. Counsel for appellant states that she has confe rre d with
counse l for appellee Texas Depa rtment of Family and P rotec tive Service s, and it does not oppose this mot ion. We gr ant the motion and dismiss t he appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a)
.

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: F ebrua

ry 27, 2014
#### Montague Henry Corporation, Landlord, Appellant, *v.*Jack Burnstein, Doing Business as Brooklyn Academy, Tenant, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 13, 1956.

*793
      *William Snair*for appellant.

*Ira H. Newman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The reasonable rent fixed by agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, § 4, as amd.) became the emergency rent and measured the liability of the tenant upon the expiration of the lease.

The final order should be unanimously modified on the law by increasing the amount awarded to the landlord to $1,166.66, with appropriate costs in the court below, and as so modified, affirmed, with $25 costs to the landlord.

Pette, Hart and Di Gtovanna, JJ., concur.

Order modified, etc.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6664 

To require certain meetings of the Tennessee Valley Authority to be 

transparent and open to the public, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2022 

Mr. BURCHETT (for himself, Mr. COHEN, and Mr. GREEN of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require certain meetings of the Tennessee Valley Authority to be transparent and open to the public, 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 ‘‘Tennessee Valley Au5 thority Transparency Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSPARENCY AND AVAILABILITY OF MEETINGS. 

7 Section 2(g)(2) of the Tennessee Valley Authority 

8 Act of 1933 is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(2) MEETINGS.— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6664 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall meet 

2 at least 4 times each year. 

3 ‘‘(B) TRANSPARENCY.—The Board shall, 

4 with respect to any meeting of the Board, a 

5 committee of the Board, or a subcommittee of 

6 the Board for which a vote is not scheduled— 

7 ‘‘(i) hold such meeting in public; 

8 ‘‘(ii) provide public notice of no fewer 

9 than 6 calendar days, through the website 

10 of the Board, of any such meeting; and 

11 ‘‘(iii) make publicly available the min12 utes and summaries of any such meeting. 

13 ‘‘(C) EMERGENCY MEETINGS.—Subpara14 graph (B)(ii) shall not apply if the chairman of 

15 the Board designates a meeting as an emer16 gency special meeting.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
ACCEPTED 12-15-00047-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 11/25/2015 8:23:18 AM

Pam Estes CLERK
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50090 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUADALUPE RASCON-BOJORQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR:03-CR-648-1-AML

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe RasconBojorquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 15

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated October 27, 2003 on our review of interim
financial information of Phelps Dodge Corporation (the Company) for the
three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2003 and September 30,
2002 included in the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 is incorporated by reference in the Companys
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-104627, 333-67606, 333-61624 and
333-43890), its Registration Statement and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on
Form S-3 (Nos. 33-44380 and 333-36415), its Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 33-26442, 33-6141, 33-26443, 33-29144, 33-19012, 2-67317, 33-34363,
33-34362, 33-62648, 333-42231, and 333-52175) and its Post-Effective Amendment
No. 4 on Form S-8 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-86061).

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
October 29, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo PERAZA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50045.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Arturo Peraza-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Peraza-Garcia contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Peraza-Garcia maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense. Alternatively, he argues that construing 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) as a sentence-enhancement provision renders the statute unconstitutional.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Peraza-Garcia acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This *427court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
OF J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AUGUST 1, 1998, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                             139
<SECURITIES>                                       959
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                        81
<INVENTORY>                                      6,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,838
<PP&E>                                           8,462
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,630
<BONDS>                                          6,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        493
<COMMON>                                         2,867
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,932
<SALES>                                         13,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,813
<CGS>                                            9,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   249
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    98
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    329
<INCOME-TAX>                                       128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                201
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       201
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of DCP Holding Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                           
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/ Anthony A. Cook        
|Principal Executive Officer
|                           
|March 17, 2009             
|                           
|/s/ Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr.
|Principal Financial Officer
|                           
|March 17, 2009             

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the
Report) of SGS International, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                                
|-------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|April 13, 2007 |  | /s/ HENRY R. BAUGHMAN                          
|               |  | Henry R. Baughman                              
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|               | 
|               |  | /s/ JAMES M. DAHMUS                            
|               |  | James M. Dahmus                                
|               |  | Chief Financial Officer