alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(A)



 






EXHIBIT 10(A)




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION

DIRECTORS RESTRICTED STOCK DEFERRAL PLAN




          WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation Directors Restricted Stock Deferral Plan is currently
maintained pursuant to a Plan document dated February 1, 2004; and




          WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend the Plan;




          NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth:





	 	1.	 	Effective September 1, 2005, the second to last sentence of Section 4.5 is hereby
amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows:
	 
	 	 	 	“ Distribution with respect to the Stock Units credited to a Participant’s Stock Account
under this Plan shall in all cases be satisfied by the delivery by the Company of a number
of Shares equal to the number of Stock Units with respect to which such distribution is
being made, except that any portion of such distribution that is derived from Dividend
Equivalent Amounts or fractional shares shall be satisfied in cash, based on the average of
the high and low trading prices of Shares on the business day immediately preceding such
distribution.”
	 
	 	2.	 	Effective December 1, 2005, the following is hereby added to the Plan at the end of
Section 4.1:
	 
	 	 	 	“Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section 4.1, or any other provisions of
the Plan, each Participant who elected to defer any portion of an Eligible Restricted Stock
Award granted in 2005 may revoke such election. Such revocation shall be in writing on such
forms as the Committee shall prescribe and must be received by the Committee on or before
December 30, 2005.”
	 
	 	3.	 	Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of this Plan
shall remain entirely unchanged and continue in full force and effect.





          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto caused this Amendment to be executed by its
duly authorized representative effective as of the date set forth above.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	By: /s/ Charles E. Jarrett
	 

	 	Title: Vice President
10907.

#### Jenkins *v.*Swicord.

Decided September 17, 1920.

Rehearing denied September 27, 1920.

Motion to set aside judgment; from city court of Cairo — Judge Rigsby. September *2,*1919. •

*Bell & Weathers,*for plaintiff.

*S. P. Cain,*for defendant.

Stephens, J.

1. While, under the Civil Code (1910), § 6047, a levy upon personal property sufficient to pay the debt, unaccounted for, raises a presumption of a satisfaction of the execution, no such presumption arises where the property is afterwards sold for a sum insufficient to satisfy the execution.

2. Where the defendant in a trover suit executes to the plaintiff a bond conditioned to produce the property to answer any judgment that may be rendered against the defendant, and to pay the eventual condemnation money, and a judgment is thereafter rendered in the proceedings against the defendant and the surety for a certain sum, with a special lien on the property, a levy on the property under the •judgment, where it is afterwards sold for a sum insufficient to pay the debt and satisfy the judgment, will not amount to a satisfaction of the judgment or operate to discharge the surety, where it does not appear that the property when levied on was sufficient to satisfy the judgment. This is true where the sale of the property was postponed by the defendant’s filing an affidavit of illegality to the levy and replevying the property by giving a bond with a different surety, and the defendant; after replevying the property, used it and caused it to depreciate in value and to become incapable of satisfying the judgment.

3. .The surety in the original bond given for the payment of the eventual condemnation money in the trover suit having made a motion to set aside the judgment as to him, upon the ground that a levy on the property by the sheriff amounted to a discharge of the surety, and the evidence having failed to disclose the value of the property when levied upon, the verdict and judgment discharging the surety were unsupported by evidence and contrary to law. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         240,794
<SECURITIES>                                10,974,628
<RECEIVABLES>                                  253,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,134
<PP&E>                                       4,144,028
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,140,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,492,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,925
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,485,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,492,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               674,343
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  367,144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                307,199
<INCOME-TAX>                                   307,199
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            307,199
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   307,199
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 10.1**

 

 

**FORMOF**

**AMENDMENT TO THE**

**DEFERRAL LETTERAGREEMENTS WITH DIRECTORS OF MILLIPORE CORPORATION**

 

WHEREAS MilliporeCorporation (the “Company”) and the undersigned individual (the “Director”) are a party to that certain letter agreement, dated as of                     (the “Agreement”), with respect to the deferral of director’s fees (including annual retainer, meeting fees andany other sums to be paid to the Director for service as a director of the Company; and 

 

WHEREAS the Company and the Director wish to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended, effective on the date hereof, as follows: 

 

1. The Company and the Director each agree that if shares of Company common stock are converted (by reason of a merger, consolidation,statutory share exchange, sale of assets or other corporate transaction) into cash, securities or other property, each Purchased Unit shall be deemed converted into such cash, securities or other property in the same manner. For purposes ofdistributions, the amount of any payments due to the Director in respect of the Purchased Units shall be determined by reference to the then current market value of such cash, securities or other property into which the Purchased Units have beendeemed converted. 

 

2. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreementshall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof on the date hereof. 

 

3. The validity, interpretation, construction performance and enforcement of this Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusettswithout giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws thereof. 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed this 12th day of August, 2004. 

 

Millipore Corporation 

 

 

 

by
EXHIBIT 23.2

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

 

        Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement.

        On April 25, 2002, the Board of Directors of Mississippi Chemical Corporation (the "Company"), upon recommendation of its Audit Committee, decided to no longer engage Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur Andersen") as the Company's independent public accountants, effective immediately. For additional information, see the Company's Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on May 1, 2002, and May 15, 2002.

        After reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's written consent to the incorporation by reference into the Company's registration statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-36998 and 333-56726 and Form S-3 No. 333-38619) (the "Registration Statements") of Arthur Andersen's audit report with respect to the Company's consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2001, and for the two years in the period then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits the Company to file this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the Registration Statements, without a written consent from Arthur Andersen. As a result, with respect to transactions in the Company's securities pursuant to the Registration Statements that occur subsequent to the date this Annual Report on Form 10-K is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, an acquiror of the Company's securities would be unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         186,132
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  928,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,742,472
<PP&E>                                       4,665,667
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,076,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,243,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,786,373
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       241,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,518,694
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,550,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,243,790
<SALES>                                      3,191,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,191,108
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,496,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,100,074
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             272,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                294,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                   137,000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            157,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   157,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00 
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 12
MERCK & CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Computation Of Ratios Of Earnings To Fixed Charges
($ in millions except ratio data)                           Twelve Months      Ended      December 31  Years Ended December 31   2004  2003  2002  2001  2000  1999 Income from Continuing OperationsBefore Taxes $7,974.5  $9,051.6  $9,651.7  $9,948.1  $9,362.3  $8,370.1                          Add (Subtract):                        One-third of rents  71.9   75.6   67.2   64.2   55.9   55.0 Interest expense, gross  293.7   350.9   390.6   463.7   484.0   315.5 Interest capitalized,net of amortization  (21.3)  (30.1)  (36.9)  (66.1)  (99.0)  (61.4)Equity (income) loss from affiliates,net of distributions  (421.2)  79.2   (156.1)  (113.7)  (288.3)  (352.7)Preferred stock dividends, net of tax  151.0   150.9   164.3   199.6   205.0   120.2                    Earnings from Continuing Operations $8,048.6  $9,678.1  $10,080.8  $10,495.8  $9,719.9  $8,446.7                                             One-third of rents $71.9  $75.6  $67.2  $64.2  $55.9  $55.0 Interest expense, gross  293.7   350.9   390.6   463.7   484.0   315.5 Preferred stock dividends  207.1   215.6   234.7   285.1   292.9   171.7                    Fixed Charges from ContinuingOperations $572.7  $642.1  $692.5  $813.0  $832.8  $542.2                     Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Chargesfrom Continuing Operations  14   15   15   13   12   16                    
For purposes of computing these ratios, “earnings” consist of income from continuingoperations before taxes, one-third of rents (deemed by the Company to be representative of theinterest factor inherent in rents), interest expense, net of amounts capitalized, equity (income)loss from affiliates, net of distributions, and dividends on preferred stock of subsidiarycompanies. “Fixed charges” consist of one-third of rents, interest expense as reported in theCompany’s consolidated financial statements and dividends on preferred stock of subsidiarycompanies.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4659

To amend chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, to extend the period 

for which an individual may elect to continue employer-sponsored health 

care coverage under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2004

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. MICHAUD, and Mr. SMITH

of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, to 

extend the period for which an individual may elect to 

continue employer-sponsored health care coverage under 

the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act of 1994, 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 ‘‘USERRA Health Care 

5 Coverage Extension Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 4659 IH 

1 SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF CONTINUATION OF EM2 PLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH CARE COV3 ERAGE. 

4 (a) IMPROVEMENT IN PERIOD OF COVERAGE.—Sub5 section (a)(1)(A) of section 4317 of title 38, United States 

6 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘18-month period’’ and in7 serting ‘‘24-month period’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply to elections made under such 

10 section 4317 on or after the date of the enactment of this 

11 Act. 

12 SEC. 3. REINSTATEMENT OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 

13 Section 4332 of title 38, United States Code, is 

14 amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by strik15 ing ‘‘no later than February 1, 1996, and annually there16 after through 2000’’ and inserting ‘‘no later than Feb17 ruary 1, 2005, and annually thereafter’’.

Æ
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed December 22, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0375

Lower Tribunal No. 20-12620

________________

Robert Gold,

Appellant,

vs.

Lee Rosen,

Appellee.

An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.

Crabtree & Auslander, and John G. Crabtree, and Charles M. 

Auslander, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for appellant.

Fasano Law Firm, PLLC, and Michael C. Fasano, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. 

MILLER, J.
2

Appellant, Robert Gold, appeals a non-final order denying his motion 

to dismiss the lawsuit pending against him in the lower tribunal. The genesis 

of the underlying complaint concerns a meeting that occurred between Gold 

and appellee, Lee Rosen, in Bal Harbour, Florida. Observing the trial court 

properly confined the sole inquiry below to “whether the tort as alleged

occurred in Florida, and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred,” the 

allegations were sufficient to both satisfy the long-arm statute, codified in 

section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2021), and establish the requisite minimum 

contacts with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over 

Gold. Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v. Teague, 721 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 1998); see § 48.193(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (“A person . . . thereby submits 

himself . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action 

arising from any of the following acts: . . . [c]ommitting a tortious act within 

this state.”); Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1979) (“[B]y 

committing a tort in Florida a nonresident establishes ‘minimum contacts’

with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over him

. . . .”); Krilich v. Wolcott, 717 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“The 

commission of a tort in Florida is sufficient to establish minimum contacts 

and satisfy federal due process concerns.”). Concluding the remaining 
3

issues warrant no further discussion, we affirm the reasoned decision under 

review.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4

                                     Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350

      In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission of BBJ Environmental Technologies, Inc.'s (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report"),
the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify (i) in our capacities as officers of the Company,
(ii) to each of our own respective actual knowledge, and (iii) solely for the
purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, that:

      (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of (S)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.

      The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report. The above certification is made
severally and not jointly.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on
August 12, 2002.


                                    By:      /s/ Robert Baker
                                       -----------------------------------
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                    By:      /s/ Jerry Schinella
                                       -----------------------------------
                                             Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6374

HENRY WATSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MACK JARVIS, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-292-BR) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Debra C. Graves, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Henry Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Watson v. Jarvis , No. CA-97-292-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
| 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                        |                                                                                                   |                                       |
|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                                                                                   |
|                                   |                                                                                              |                                  |
| Date: November                22, 2005 | By:                                                                                          | /s/ William                P. Spencer |
|                                        | William P. Spencer  Chief                Executive Officer and President      |