alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to the Energy Future Holdings Corp. Executive Change in Control Policy




 Exhibit 10(m) 
 AMENDMENT TO THE ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP. 
 EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL POLICY 

THIS AMENDMENT is made this 23rd day of December 2008, by Energy Future Holdings Corp. (the “Company”), to the Energy Future Holding Corp
Executive Change in Control Policy (the “Policy”), originally effective as of May 20, 2005. 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 

 WHEREAS, the Company desires to make changes to the Policy to comply with Section 409A of the Code and the regulations and other
guidance promulgated thereunder; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 9 of the Policy provides that the Company’s Board of Directors or duly
authorized committee may amend the Policy at any time, except if the Company is in the process of negotiating a Change in Control with a third party; 
 WHEREAS, the Executive Vice President – Human Resources for the Company has been delegated sufficient authority by the Board to amend the Policy to comply with Section 409A of the Code; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises contained herein, the Policy is amended as follows, effective as of January 1, 2009. 
 Section 3(c) shall be amended by deleting the section in its entirety and replacing it as follows: 
 “c. Health Care Benefits. Eligible Executives will be eligible for continued health care coverage under the Company’s health care plans
for the applicable COBRA period. The required contribution by the Eligible Executive for such continued coverage will be the applicable employee rate, for the period shown in the following table, unless and until the end of such period, or until the
Eligible Executive becomes eligible for coverage for a particular type of benefit through employment with another employer, at which time the required contribution for continuing such benefit coverage hereunder shall be the applicable COBRA rate for
such benefit. The period of 









 
continued health care coverage provided for herein shall run concurrently with the Eligible Executive’s available COBRA coverage period. 
  

			
	 Position
	  	Period of Subsidized Premium for
Health Care Coverage
	 Chief Executive Officer
	  	18 months
	 Member of Senior Leadership Team
	  	18 months
	 Member of Leadership Team
	  	1 year

 If an Eligible Executive who is the Chief Executive Officer or a member of the
Senior Leadership Team is covered under the Company’s health care plans through the end of such eighteen (18) month period, then such Eligible Executive shall receive an additional payment, within thirty (30) days of the end of such
eighteen (18) month period, in an amount equal to the monthly cost of such coverage for the period provided in the following table: 
  

			
	 Position
	  	Period of Subsidized Premium for
Health Care Coverage
	 Chief Executive Officer
	  	18 months
	 Member of Senior Leadership Team
	  	6 months

 Such payment shall be made in a lump sum. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first set forth above. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ RIZ CHAND
		 	M. Rizwan Chand
		 	Executive Vice President, Human Resources

  

 -2-
stockcertificate.htm


    INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF

    State of
California

    


    NUMBER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
SHARES

    


    


    


    SCIENCE
WATER, INC.

    


    100,000,000
common authorized

    par value
$0.001 per share

    


    


    This
Certifies that___________________________________ is the Registered holder of
_________________________Shares, Transferable
only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by
Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed
by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed
this ________day of _______________________, A.D.__________.

    


    


    


    ____________________________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
 ____________________________________

    Secretary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              President

    


    Shares
$.001 par value each
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
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2008 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, 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 of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.
  /s/ Deirdre Y. GillespieDeirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Niv E. CaviarNiv E. CaviarExecutive Vice President, Chief Business
Officerand Chief Financial Officer Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to La
Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and will be retained by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TIMOTHY MURRAY

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00186

- C R

Appeal from the

299 th District Court

of Travis County , Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- DC

- 15

- 203175 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s pro se motion to dismiss appointed counsel.

Because it is unclear from the motion whether Appellant is requesting the appointment of a

different attorney or if he intends to represent him on appeal, the Court asked Appellant to clarify

his request. In his resp onse, Appellant states that he wishes to proceed pro se on appeal “for

now” until he needs the assistance of appointed counsel or his family has retained counsel to

represent him. This statement does not constitute a clear, unequivocal, and unconditional request

for self

- representation. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8 th day of March , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez

, and Palafox

, JJ.
#### Robert Curtis COVINGTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-2976.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

Robert Curtis Covington, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that the lower tribunal has now disposed of the matter pending below, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED as moot.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Unassociated Document


    QUITCLAIM
      TRANSFER OF TITLE AND CLAIMS

     

    In
      consideration of common stock and options from Concentric Energy Corp
      (“Concentric”) and other valuable consideration including salary, Ralph W.
      Kettell, II hereby confirms that he has agreed to:

     

    1.
      transfer to Concentric all title and claims in his possession or under his
      control relating to the Anderson Mine in Yavapai County Arizona by this
      instrument, to the extent permitted by law, and to take such other steps as
      may
      be required to cause such title and claims to be transferred or otherwise vested
      in Concentric, free and clear; and 

    


    2.
      execute any additional supporting documentation to effect the transfer or such
      title and claims to Concentric, or to otherwise vest such title and claims
      in
      Concentric, as may be requested by Concentric, at any time during ten years
      from
      the date hereof.

     

    This
      Instrument will governed by the laws of the State of Nevada. The complete
      understanding of Kettell and Concentric is expressed in this document, which
      replaces a handwritten document dated on or about December 15, 2006. To the
      extent permitted by law, it is intended that the transactions contemplated
      by
      this Instrument be effective as of December 15, 2006. 

    


    
      	
              Executed
                by:

            	 	 
	 	
              Dated:

            	
              04/13/07

            


    

    


    
      	
              /s/
                Ralph Kettell

            
	
              Ralph
                W. Kettell, II

            
	
              3537
                Spencerville Rd.

            
	
              Suite
                #4

            
	
              Burtonsville,
                MD 20866

            


    

     

    STATE
      OF Maryland )

    )
      ss.

    County
      of  Montgomery)

    


    On
      04/13/07, before me, Nidhi K. Shah, a notary public in and for
      said State, personally appeared RALPH W. KETTELL, II, personally known to me
      (or
      proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
      name is/are subscribed to the within instrument(s) and acknowledged to me that
      he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and
      that
      by his/her/their signature on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity(ies)
      upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

    


    WITNESS
      my hand and official seal.

     

    /s/
      Nidhi K.
      Shah          



    


    Notary
      Public
627 A.2d 1133

#### M. EDWIN BRY, T/A BRY’S MARINE v. S2 YACHTS, INC.

April 27, 1993.

Petition for certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for further factual findings and reconsideration of its legal conclusions in respect of the “community of interest” issue in the light of *Instructional Systems, Inc. v. Computer Curriculum Corp.,*130 *N.J.*324, 614 A.2d 124 (1992) and, based on such findings and conclusions, the entry of such judgment as may be appropriate.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
#### I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Charles Sauls.

(No. 3025.)

Error from Williamson County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 242. *Citation; requisites of; when a corporation is the defendant.*The petition of Charles Sauls prayed for citation to the defendant, the railroad company, to be served upon its agent, F. D. Ungles. The citation commanded as follows: “You are commanded to summon (F. D. Ungles, agent of) the International & Great Northern Railroad, to appear,” etc. This citation was served upon said Ungles and duly returned. The defendant company did not answer in the suit, and judgment by default was rendered against it. *Held:*A citation, to be valid, must command the officer to whom it is directed to summon the *defendant*in the suit. [R. S. art. 1215.] It is not sufficient when it merely commands that the *agent*of the defendant be served. This suit being against an incorporated company, it was competent to serve the citation upon the local agent of such company in the county in which the suit was instituted. [R. S. art. 1223.] But this provision does not affect the requisite that the citation must *command*that the *defendant*be summoned. This precise question was determined by our supreme court in the case of Sun Mutual Insurance Co. v. Seeligson & Co. 59 Tex. 3. In that case it is said: “ This citation is defective in that it does not direct the ‘ Sun Mutual Insurance Company ’ to be summoned to appear and answer. The citation must direct the officer to summon the person or corporation against whom the proceeding is had. In case of process against a corporation, it may be served upon an agent, and the writ should so direct; but a writ which only directs the officer who is to execute it to summon the agent to answer is insufficient.” The citation in that case was against a garnishee, but it is not perceived that the rule *187would be different in other cases. The rule, we think, is applicable to all citations, and the decision quoted virtually overrules the case of R. R. Co. v. Shepherd, 21 Tex. 274, which seems to hold a different doctrine.

June 7, 1884.

Eeversed and remanded.
#### STATE ex rel. Camella M. MARKS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0284.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Marks, Camella M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 08-121, 06-669; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-1058.

Granted. The district court is ordered to provide relator with copies of her guilty plea colloquies under docket numbers 06-669 and 08-121. See *State ex rel. Simmons v. State,*93-0275 (La.12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued4002F
Ocean Trade International, Inc., 16517 SW 52nd Street, Miami, FL 33185
July 22, 2010.004553F
Marianas Steamship Agencies, Inc. dba MSA Logistics, Commercial Port Annex, 2nd Floor, 1010 Cabras Highway, Piti, Guam 96915
August 15, 2010.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. 2010-24412 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     I, John W. Paulson, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB/A of MakeMusic, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: January 25, 2007 By:  /s/ John W. Paulson    John W. Paulson    Chief Executive Officer
#### Patricia Yglesias TILCHIN, Appellant, v. Louis Meyers TILCHIN, Appellee.

No. 2D10-2714.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 29, 2011.

David A. Maney and Paul S. Maney of Maney, Damsker, Jones & Kuhlman, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

S. David Anton of Anton Legal Group, Tampa, and Cynthia L. Greene of Law Offices of Greene Smith & Associates, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.

DAVIS, Judge.

Patricia Tilchin, the Former Wife, challenges the order on attorney’s fees entered after the final judgment of dissolution. Because the final judgment of dissolution was previously reversed and remanded for reconsideration, *see Tilchin v. Tilchin,*51 So.3d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), we reverse and remand the order on attorney’s fees so that the trial court can reconsider the award of attorney’s fees once the final judgment of dissolution is entered.

In providing the trial court with instructions on the remand of the final judgment of dissolution, this court specifically held that equitable distribution and alimony might be impacted. *Id.*at 598 (“If the trial court again enters an unequal distribution, it must make adequate and consistent findings of fact justifying the unequal distribution. In the event that the trial court is not able to articulate a valid reason for an unequal distribution, on remand the court is authorized to fashion a new equitable distribution plan and alimony award to achieve an appropriate result articulating supporting findings of fact based on the evidence presented at and in conjunction with the final hearing.”). Because the actions taken by the trial court on remand from our previous opinion could impact the figures used to calculate the parties’ respective needs or abilities to pay, it is appropriate for the trial court to also reconsider the entitlement to attorney’s fees on remand.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

RONALD D. THOMPSON

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D16

- 1558

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 19, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit

Court for St. Johns County, J. Michael Traynor , Judge.

Ronald D. Thompson

, Lake Butler

, pro se

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport

, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

PALMER

, ORFINGER, and EVANDER

, J

. J., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20886 

Summary Calendar

__________________

DANIEL JOSEPH LUKEN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID STILES ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CV-1287

- - - - - - - - - -

February 22, 1996

Before JOHNSON, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Joseph Luken argues that the district court abused

its discretion in dismissing as frivolous his complaint against

David Stiles that Stiles filed an appellate brief on Luken's

behalf although he had not been appointed to represent Luken.

We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district

court, and the brief, and find that the dismissal of the

complaint as frivolous should be affirmed for reasons other than

those stated by the district court. See Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S.
No. 95-20886

-2-

Ct. 2364, 2371-73 (1994); Boyd v. Bigger, 31 F.3d 279, 282-84

(5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-246]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Farm Credit Administration Board; Regular Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm 
Credit Administration Board (Board).

Date and Time: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on 
January 14, 2010, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes 
its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed 
to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board 
meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in 
advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

    A. Approval of Minutes
    <bullet> December 10, 2009
    B. New Business
    <bullet> Auditors' Report on FCA FY 2009/2008 Financial Statements
    C. Reports
    <bullet> Office of Examination (OE) Quarterly Report

Closed Session*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Session Closed--Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and 
(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Update on OE Oversight Activities

    Dated: January 6, 2010.
Roland E. Smith,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-246 Filed 1-6-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P