alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.6    
    


 
 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
    


        THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made and entered into effective
August 28, 2001 by and between Caremark Rx, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Caremark") and E. Mac Crawford ("Executive"). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in that certain Employment Agreement by and between Caremark and Executive dated March 18, 1998, as amended August 6, 1998, December 1,
1998, and March 8, 2000 (the "Employment Agreement"). 


        WHEREAS, Caremark and Executive entered into the Employment Agreement on March 18, 1998 for a five-year term ending on
March 18, 2003, subject to extension as provided therein; and 


        WHEREAS, effective August 28, 2001 the Company agreed to extend the stated term of the Employment Agreement. 



        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in the Employment
Agreement and this Amendment, the parties agree as follows: 


        1.    Amendment of Section 2.    Section 2 is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following substituted therefore: 


        The
term of employment provided for in this Agreement shall commence on March 18, 1998 (the "Commencement Date"), and shall remain in full force and effect until
September 1, 2006. Such term shall be automatically extended for an additional year on each anniversary of the Commencement Date, unless written notice of non-extension is provided by Caremark
to Executive at least 30 days prior to such anniversary. 


        2.    No Other Amendment.    Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the
Employment Agreement shall not be modified or amended and shall remain in full force and effect. 


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 


Caremark Rx, Inc.  



	/s/  KIRK MCCONNELL      
 Kirk McConnell

Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer	 	/s/  HARRIS DIAMOND      
 Harris Diamond

Director and Compensation Committee Chairman
	

/s/  E. MAC CRAWFORD      
 E. Mac Crawford	
 	

 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.6


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
News United States Air Force
 Carter expresses regret for loss of 6 US troops in AfghanistanPublished Dec. 22, 2015
                        
                        
                        DoD News, Defense Media Activity
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Defense Secretary Ash Carter has expressed his deep regret over the loss of six U.S. service members killed in a vehicle bomb attack outside Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, Dec. 21.
“We are still learning all of the details, but two other service members and a U.S. contractor were also injured,” Carter said in a statement released yesterday by the Defense Department. The loss “serves as a painful reminder of the dangers our troops face every day in Afghanistan.”
The defense secretary noted that on each stop of his visit last week to Afghanistan -- which included stops on Bagram and Forward Operating Base Fenty in Jalalabad -- he saw U.S. and Afghan troops working side by side.
“Our troops are working diligently alongside our Afghan partners to build a brighter future for the Afghan people. Their dedicated efforts will continue despite this tragic event,” he said.
“Our deepest sympathies go out to the families of these brave Americans who died in service to this vital mission, and our thoughts remain with all of our troops serving overseas during this holiday season so that we may have peace and security at home,” Carter said.Ash Carter 



SecDEF 



Afghanistan
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 78 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 78

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
 Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services 
  relating to optional State plan case management services under the 
                           Medicaid Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2008

  Mr. Ellison (for himself, Mr. Allen, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. 
   Oberstar, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr. Walz of 
    Minnesota) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & 
 Medicaid Services within the Department of Health and Human Services 
  relating to optional State plan case management services under the 
                           Medicaid Program.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within 
the Department of Health and Human Services relating to optional State 
plan case management services under the Medicaid program (published at 
72 Fed. Reg. 68077 (December 4, 2007)), and such rule shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles E. Keefer v. The Common Council of the City of Hillsdale.

*Local option law.*

This case is ruled by the opinion *In re Hauck, ante,*396.

*Mandamus.*

Argued May 1, and re-argued May 15, 1888.

Granted May 18, 1888.

Eelator applies for *mandamus*to compel respondent to approve of his bond as a retail liquor dealer. The facts are-stated *In re Hauck, ante,*396, as also the points of counsel.

*F. A. Baker,*for relator.

*Moses Taggart,*Attorney General, *G. A. Shepard,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *Guy M. Chester,*City Attorney, for respondent.

Champlin, J.

This case is ruled by the opinion filed *In re Hauck, ante,*396.

The *mandamus*will issue to compel the common council to proceed under Act No. 313, Laws of 1887, in such case made and provided.

The other Justices concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

[Docket No. USN-2010-0004]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 
18, 2010.
    Title and OMB Number: JAGC Applicant Survey; OMB Control Number 
0703-TBD.
    Type of Request: New.
    Number of Respondents: 800.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 800.
    Average Burden Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 200 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General requires a 
method to improve recruiting and accession board processes in order to 
recruit and select the best individuals as judge advocates. A survey 
will allow the JAG Corps to assess whether certain traits and/or 
behaviors are indicators of future success in the JAG Corps. If the 
survey is found to be predictive, it will be a reliable, valid, and 
fair tool to be used in recruiting and selection decisions.
    Affected Public: Individuals or household.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: September 3, 2010.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-23087 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued September 16, 2014

Decided September 18, 2014

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

No. 13-3713

INSTEP SOFTWARE LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

INSTEP (BEIJING) SOFTWARE CO., LTD.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 11 C 3947

John W. Darrah, Judge.

Order

InStep Software asked the district court to declare that Instep (Beijing) Software is no 

longer authorized to sell or license InStep’s products. The district court entered judgment in InStep’s favor, and Instep (Beijing) has appealed.

As the names suggest, the two parties are related: InStep is among the equity investors in Instep (Beijing). This means that the requirements of subject-matter jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(2) are satisfied only if Instep (Beijing) is treated as having its 

own citizenship, independent of the citizenships of its investors. If the citizenships of 

InStep’s members (for InStep is itself not a corporation) are imputed to Instep (Beijing), 

complete diversity is missing.
No. 13-3713 Page 2

In the district court, InStep argued, and the judge found, that Instep (Beijing) is a citizen of China (and only China) because Chinese law treats it as a “juridical person.” 

Our decision in Fellowes, Inc. v. Changzhou Xinrui Fellowes Office Equipment Co., No. 12-

3124 (7th Cir. July 22, 2014), shows that this approach is untenable.

That leaves the question whether Instep (Beijing) has attributes sufficiently similar to 

those of a corporation organized in the United States. See, e.g., BouMatic, LLC v. Idento 

Operations, BV, No. 13-2300 (7th Cir. July 22, 2014). At oral argument counsel disagreed 

about just what attributes Instep (Beijing) possesses—could not agree, indeed, on what

kind of entity it is as a matter of Chinese law. Instep (Beijing) calls itself a “common law 

joint venture.” InStep calls it both a “limited liability company” and a “Chinese – foreign equity joint venture.”

Instead of attempting to resolve factual disputes in this court, we think it prudent to 

remand so that the district court may determine, in the first instance, (a) what kind of 

business form Instep (Beijing) has; (b) what attributes such a form possesses under Chinese law (for example, does it have alienable shares, and what role does the government of China play in determining the venture’s duration and ownership?); and (c) 

whether a business organization of this kind should be treated as a corporation for the 

purpose of §1332, given the analysis in Fellowes and BouMatic.

If the district court finds that Instep (Beijing) is not a corporation, the case must be 

dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. If Instep (Beijing) is a corporation, the 

judgment on the merits should be reentered. Any appeal from the new decision will return to this panel.

VACATED AND REMANDED
Arrangements with John D. Poe



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Arrangements with John D. Poe 
  
 On October 6, 2003, Jason L. Carlson was promoted to the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. John D. Poe, who had served as Chief Executive
Officer since October 1985, continues in his role as Chairman of the Board of Directors. 
  
 Upon this change in status Mr. Poe’s compensation was adjusted to be consistent with that of other outside directors, which includes a twice-yearly stock option grant to purchase 5,000 shares at the market price
as of the date of grant. 
  
 In lieu of cash retainers and meeting fees for the
period October 6, 2003 through July 15, 2008, Mr. Poe was granted an option for shares of the Company’s stock. Based on the same formula applicable to other outside directors and taking into consideration the leadership role of the Chairman, he
was granted an option for 45,960 shares. The vesting and other terms and conditions of the option, which are the same as those applicable to other outside directors, are specified in the Form of Award Agreement filed with the Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 27, 2002. 
  
 In addition to the compensation provided to outside directors generally, the following arrangements have been made with Mr. Poe: 
  
 He is entitled to continue participation in Company-sponsored medical and dental plans on an individual or family basis, as he elects, until he reaches
the age of sixty-five. The Company is not obligated to provide any insurance not available to Company employees generally and the allocation of premiums between the Company and Mr. Poe will be calculated in the same manner as for Company employees
generally. Mr. Poe will pay his allocated portion of the premiums on an annual basis. 
  
 Should Mr. Poe leave the Board in good standing prior to the final vesting date for employee stock options awarded to him prior to October 6, 2003, and if he so requests, the Company will employ him on a part time
basis from the date he ceases to be a Director until September 21, 2007 on such terms and conditions as the Compensation Committee may then establish. 
  
 The Company will continue to provide to Mr. Poe, without charge, a computer, cell phone and similar items for use on Company business. 
  
 An employee who terminates his or her employment with the Company during the
year may be awarded, at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, a pro-rated bonus based on his or her performance prior to termination. Accordingly, Mr. Poe may be awarded a pro-rated bonus in calendar year 2004
based on his performance as Chief Executive Officer through October 6, 2003.
##### 



Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NTL (Triangle) LLC (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barclay
Knapp, as Director of NTL Group Ltd., the sole managing member of the
Company, and John F. Gregg, as Director of NTL Group Ltd., the sole
managing member of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; 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/ Barclay Knapp
Name:  Barclay Knapp
Title:   Director of NTL Group Ltd., the sole managing
member of NTL (Triangle) LLC*
Date:   August 19, 2002

/s/ John F. Gregg
Name:  John F. Gregg
Title:   Director of NTL Group Ltd., the sole managing
member of NTL (Triangle) LLC*
Date:   August 19, 2002

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

*   The Company has no Chief
Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer. Barclay Knapp and John
F. Gregg are Directors of NTL Group Ltd., the sole managing member of
the Company, and are Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively, of NTL Incorporated, the indirect parent of
NTL Group Ltd.
759 A.2d 912

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. George REITZ, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 11, 2000.

George J. Reitz, Jr. for petitioner.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2000, petitioner’s “Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Allowance of Appeal” and “Motion for Leave to Supplement Record by Offering Slip Opinion from a Pennsylvania Appellate Court Regarding Petitioner’s Unlawfully Enhanced Sentence” are granted, and the petition for allowance of appeal is denied.
583 A.2d 344

#### KELLY ANN APGAR v. PFIZER, INC., ETC.

March 20, 1990.

Leave to appeal granted.
#### E. C. Donnelly v. Citizens’ Bank.

(No. 2344.)

Appeal from Bowie County.

Estes & Henry, counsel for appellant.

Todd & Hudgins, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 169. *Illegal contract; gambling consideration; bet on an election; check on bank for money bet on election is void even in hands of an innocent holder; case stated.*Appellant Donnelly and one Byone made a bet upon the result of the last presidential election. Each drew his check upon appellee, the Citizens’ Bank, for the amount of his bet, placed the checks in an envelope, sealed the envelope, wrote their names upon it, and deposited it in the hands of the book-keeper of said bank, who placed it in the safe of said bank. Byone, having won the bet, got the envelope from appellee, took out Donnelly’s check for $200, presented it to appellee for payment, and it was paid by appellee. Donnelly refused to repay the money to appellee, and appellee brought this suit to recover said amount. Appellant pleaded that the check was void, having been executed for a gambling consideration. Appellee replied that it was an innocent and *bona, fide*purchaser and holder for value of said check, and the evidence appears to sustain this replication. Appellee recovered judgment for the amount sued for and costs. *Held:*In this state, it has always been the rule that wagers on horse-races were recoverable, because not prohibited by law, and because such contracts tend to stimulate and encourage an improvement in the breed and qualities of the horse. [Kirkland v. Randon, 8 Tex. 10.] And all contracts subsidiary and incident to such wagers are valid also, as, for instance, a contract to forfeit in- case of failure to run the race. [Wheeler v. Friend, 22 Tex. 683.] Bu.t a note given for *213money won at cards is void. [Norvell v. Oury, 13 Tex. 31; Conner v. Mackey, 20 Tex. 747.] And so a note given for money won at ten-pins was held void. [Monroe v. Smelly, 25 Tex. 586.] Our statute makes it a penal offense to bet upon the result of any election for a public officer, held under the constitution and laws of the United States or of this state. [Penal Code, arts. 371-373.] Such contracts are illegal and void. They are against public policy and in violation of law. They are not only void as between the original parties thereto, but a note or other security given upon consideration of money so won stands in the same attitude in law as a note or other security given in consideration ofunoney won at gaming, and is void even in the handá óf an innocent holder for a valuable consideration. [Unger v. Boas, 13 Penn. St. 601; Harmon v. Boyce, 2 Tread. (S. C.) 200; Holman v. Ringo, 36 Miss. 690; Chapin v. Duke, 57 Ill. 295; 7 Wait’s Ac. & Def. pp. 87, 88.]

October 30, 1886.

Beversed and remanded.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Quarterly Report of Viewpoint Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Anthony L. Pane, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; 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 L. PANE
Anthony L. Pane
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. John R. Freeman.

(No. 6764.)

Appeal from Collin County.

Alexander & Clark and J. W.. Terry, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 346. *Common carrier; right of to surrender of hill of lading on delivery of goods.*HSuit was instituted by Freeman against the railroad company in justice’s court *420for $180 damages for withholding and refusing to deliver to him certain goods shipped to him, and detaining and refusing to deliver the same to him for a period of forty days. Freeman recovered judgment in the justice’s court for $162. Appeal by the company to the county court, where the case was tried by the court without a jury, and Freeman again recovered judgment, but for $36, which judgment is here appealed. The court found that the value of Freeman’s time was $4.50 per day for eight days, during the time he was kept out of employment, and rendered judgment for that amount. The delay in the delivery of the goods, as shown by the undisputed evidence, was that Freeman did not, and in fact could not, produce a bill of lading for the goods, or sufficiently identify himself as the owner. It is true that he offered security, but defendant was under no obligation to accept personal security to indemnify itself for loss for improper delivery of the freight to a party wholly unknown to the agent of the company. [Railway Co. v. Adams, 49 Tex. 161.] The company had a right to the bill of lading as a protection to itself. On cross-examination the plaintiff testified that the goods were in fact delivered to him before he did produce and present his bill of lading for them. We are of the .opinion the evidence fails to show any legal or valid cause of action in plaintiff; wherefore the judgment is reversed, and judgment is here rendered that the appellee, John R. Freeman, take nothing by this suit, and that appellant, defendant in the court below, the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railroad Company, go hence without day, and do have and recover of said John R. Freeman all costs in this court and the lower courts incurred in this cause, and that execution may issue for the same.

April 29, 1891.

Reversed and rendered.