alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CEC-8K-Exhibit101AmendmentNo2toCECPIP






Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
2012 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN


This Amendment No. 2 (“ Amendment”) to the Caesars Entertainment Corporation 2012 Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), is adopted by Caesars Entertainment Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the same meanings assigned to them in the Plan.
RECITALS


A. Section 4.2 of the Plan provides that the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to awards granted under the Plan is the sum of (1) 6,867,018 shares of Common Stock, plus (2) the number of shares of Common Stock subject to stock options granted under the Company’s Management Equity Incentive Plan (the “MEIP”) and outstanding on the Stockholder Approval Date (as such term is used in the Plan) which expired, or for any reason were cancelled or terminated, after the Stockholder Approval Date without being exercised, plus (3) the number of shares of Common Stock that, as of the Stockholder Approval Date, remained available for issuance pursuant to the MEIP, other than shares of Common Stock subject to options that were outstanding as of the Stockholder Approval Date.
B. Section 8.6 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”) may amend or modify the Plan at any time, provided , however , that to the extent necessary to comply with any applicable law, the Company must obtain stockholder approval of any Plan amendment as required.
C. The Board believes it to be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to awards granted under the Plan, pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Plan, subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company.
AMENDMENT


1. Subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company, Section 4.2 of the Plan is hereby amended by striking “6,867,018” and replacing it with “14,867,018”.
2. Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other Articles, Sections, terms and conditions of the Plan remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1432 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1432

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 18, 2024

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
deductibility of charitable contributions to certain organizations for 
                      members of the Armed Forces.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``VSO Equal Tax Treatment Act'' or as 
the ``VETT Act''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTIBILITY OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN 
              ORGANIZATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(6) An organization described in section 501(c)(19) that 
        is a federally chartered corporation.''.
    (b) Percentage Limitation.--Section 170(b)(1)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause 
(viii), by adding ``or'' at the end of clause (ix), and by inserting 
after clause (ix) the following new clause:
                            ``(x) an organization described in section 
                        501(c)(19) that is a federally chartered 
                        corporation,''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT WORTHY, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-00664-WS-N 

 ) 

ACCUMARINE TRANSPORTATION, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

 JUDGMENT 

Pursuant to the order entered this day, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and 

DECREED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE this 29th day of July, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 1:09-cv-00664-WS-N Document 24 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.14(b)


 Schedule of Secured Convertible Notes (new financings after October 31, 2005)
       Issued by NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind and outstanding as of
                                December 13, 2005


    Issue Date       Due Date         Principal             Conversion Price
    ----------       --------         ---------             ----------------
     11/15/05        05/15/06          $300,000         Greater of: (i) $0.0042;
                                                        or (ii) the par value of
                                                        NCT Group, Inc.
                                                        common stock on the date
                                                        of conversion
     12/07/05        06/07/06          $300,000         Greater of: (i) $0.0045;
                                                        or (ii) the par value of
                                                        NCT Group, Inc.
                                                        common stock on the date
                                                        of conversion
SUBROUTINE UNIPDF(X,PDF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE PROBABILITY DENSITY
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE UNIFORM (RECTANGULAR) 
C              DISTRIBUTION ON THE UNIT INTERVAL (0,1).
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION HAS MEAN = 0.5
C              AND STANDARD DEVIATION = SQRT(1/12) = 0.28867513.
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION HAS THE PROBABILITY
C              DENSITY FUNCTION F(X) = 1.
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--X      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE AT
C                                WHICH THE PROBABILITY DENSITY
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--PDF    = THE SINGLE PRECISION PROBABILITY
C                                DENSITY FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION PROBABILITY DENSITY
C             FUNCTION VALUE PDF.
C     PRINTING--NONE UNLESS AN INPUT ARGUMENT ERROR CONDITION EXISTS. 
C     RESTRICTIONS--X SHOULD BE BETWEEN 0 AND 1, INCLUSIVELY.
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--2, 1970, PAGES 57-74.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--JUNE      1972. 
C     UPDATED         --SEPTEMBER 1975. 
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS
C
      IF(X.LT.0.0.OR.X.GT.1.0)GOTO50
      GOTO90
   50 WRITE(IPR,2)
      WRITE(IPR,46)X
      PDF=0.0
      RETURN
   90 CONTINUE
    2 FORMAT(1H ,120H***** NON-FATAL DIAGNOSTIC--THE FIRST  INPUT ARGUME
     1NT TO THE UNIPDF SUBROUTINE IS OUTSIDE THE USUAL (0,1) INTERVAL **
     1***)
   46 FORMAT(1H , 35H***** THE VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS ,E15.8,6H *****)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      PDF=1.0
C
      RETURN
      END
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

NEKESAH SIMON, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTON NO. 09-369-CB-N 

) 

CYNTHIA S. WHEELER-WHITE, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 

' 636 is adopted as the opinion of this Court. 

It is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to allow petitioner to 

exhaust her claims in state court. 

DONE this 4th day of August, 2010. 

/s/Charles R. Butler, Jr. 

CHARLES R. BUTLER, JR. 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00369-CB-N Document 16 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
32





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Bay National Corporation
(the “Company”) each certifies that to the best of his knowledge the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and the information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Hugh
W. Mohler





Hugh W.
Mohler


Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer


March 28,
2008








/s/ Mark
A. Semanie





Mark A.
Semanie


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


March 28,
2008





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is
not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document,
and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason other
than as specifically required by law.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1612 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to revise the definition 

of the term ‘‘tipped employee’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2023 

Mr. WOMACK (for himself and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to revise 

the definition of the term ‘‘tipped employee’’, 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 ‘‘Tipped Employee Pro5 tection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TIPPED EMPLOYEES. 

7 Section 3(t) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

8 (29 U.S.C. 203(t)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘(t)’’ and inserting ‘‘(t)(1)’’; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1612 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘engaged in an occupation in 

2 which he customarily and regularly receives more 

3 than $30 a month in tips.’’ and inserting ‘‘, without 

4 regard to the duties of the employee, who receives 

5 tips and other cash wages for a period described in 

6 paragraph (2) at a rate that when combined with 

7 the cash wage required under subsection 

8 (m)(2)(A)(i) is greater than or equal to the wage in 

9 effect under section 6(a)(1).’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(2) The period described in this paragraph may be 

12 (as determined by the employer) a period of 1 day, 1 week, 

13 every other week, every pay period, or 1 month.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ex101.htm









EXTENSION AGREEMENT







1.           Identification of Note.  This Agreement refers to the loan evidenced by a promissory note identified as Term Note A, dated October 7, 2013, in the original principal amount of $10,000,000.00 ("Note"), executed by Champion Industries, Inc., a West Virginia corporation (by its duly authorized officer)("Maker"), and guaranteed by, inter alia, Marshall T. Reynolds ("Guarantor").  This Note is presently held by Big 4 Investments, L.L.C., 63399 Hwy 51, Roseland, LA 70456 ("Holder"), upon which the present principal balance is Nine Million One Hundred Thousand ($9,100,000) Dollars.







2.           Extension.  It is agreed that the Note is extended to become due and payable on April 1, 2017, and Maker shall continue to make monthly payments of all accrued interest together with principal reduction payments of $50,000 per month on the first day of each month beginning May 1, 2015 on the same terms, rate and conditions set forth in the Note. The entire balance then due and owing shall be paid on April 1, 2017.







3.           Maker's/Guarantors' promise to Pay.  In consideration of Holder's forbearance to enforce payment except in accordance with this extension, Maker and Guarantor acknowledge and admit the indebtedness evidenced by the Note, and unconditionally promise to pay the indebtedness with interest at the time and in the manner provided in the Note, as extended by this Agreement.







4.           No Novation/Collateral.  This Agreement is an extension only, and not a novation.  Except as otherwise provided, all of the terms and conditions of the Note, existing guarantees, and all terms and conditions of any and all security documents including but not limited to mortgages, deeds of trust, UCC-1s and security agreements ("collateral documents"), with the exception of maturity date, shall remain in full force and effect.







Executed by Maker and Guarantor this 29th day of April, 2015, in Huntington, West Virginia.







MAKER:                                                                                                  GUARANTOR:







CHAMPION INDUSTRIES, INC.







                 /s/ Marshall T. Reynolds                                                                                          /s/ Marshall T. Reynolds 


By:           Marshall T. Reynolds                                                                                                MARSHALL T. REYNOLDS, individually


                 Authorized Officer                           




HOLDER:







BIG 4 INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.












BY:         /s/ Edgar Ray Smith, III


Edgar Ray Smith, III, Managing Member







Date: May 4, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                                  <C>               <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS             6-MOS             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997       DEC-31-1997       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997       JUN-30-1997       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                            3,197,000         4,736,000         4,622,000
<SECURITIES>                              0                 0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                    33,694,000        33,877,000        35,697,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        830,000         1,771,000         1,771,000
<INVENTORY>                      20,620,000        21,611,000        21,806,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 60,396,000        62,146,000        64,069,000
<PP&E>                           58,205,000        58,940,000        59,436,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   42,336,000        43,034,000        43,758,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   86,348,000        88,825,000        90,782,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            23,719,000        25,218,000        25,617,000
<BONDS>                                   0                 0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                 0                 0
<PREFERRED>                         176,000           176,000           176,000
<COMMON>                          2,586,000         2,586,000         2,589,000
<OTHER-SE>                                0                 0                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     86,348,000        88,825,000        90,782,000
<SALES>                          37,818,000        75,715,000       116,138,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 37,818,000        75,715,000       116,138,000
<CGS>                            22,013,000        43,556,000        66,230,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    22,013,000        43,556,000        66,230,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                 0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                 0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   84,000           167,000           170,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   1,442,000         2,987,000         6,152,000
<INCOME-TAX>                        387,000           884,000         2,262,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               1,055,000         2,103,000         3,890,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                 0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 0                 0
<CHANGES>                                 0                 0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      1,055,000         2,103,000         3,890,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .41               .81              1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .38               .76              1.41
        


</TABLE>
11310.

#### JONES *v.*THE STATE.

Decided April 14, 1920.

Whether the evidence was sufficient to identify the accused as the person who made the assault was a question for the jury; and this court can not say that the verdict was without evidence to support it.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder; from Eulton superior court — Judge Humphries. January 24, 1920.

*Fred. E. Harrison, B. H. & Harvey Hill,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to murder. The motion for a new trial contains only the usual general grounds. In the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error it is insisted that “ there is no satisfactory evidence as to the identity of the defendant as a.party who made the assault. . . In connection with this evidence the testimony shows undoubtedly that the defendant was not the man, because thirty minutes after the alleged assault he was at work at the very place where the assault was made. . . Take this evidence in connection with the evidence offered by the defendant tending to show an alibi, and it must be conceded that there is no substantial or satisfactory evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the man who committed the assault.” The question of the identity of the defendant was one to be settled by the jury under the evidence. The person who was assaulted testified: “I know he is the negro.” The assault happened “about five minutes after 12 o’clock.” At the place where the person assaulted was found there was “ about a hatfull of blood.” The accused was arrested “ a little after one o’clock,” and “there was fresh blood on his shirt.” The officer who arrested the accused testified: The defendant “ told me that he did this. I did not threaten him.”

“ Under the facts as disclosed by the record this court cannot say that the verdict of the jury is without support from the testimony or so far contrary to it as to authorize this court to determine that the trial j'udge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new *251trial. The law allows him to refuse or grant new trials in the exercise of a legal discretion, but it does not give this court any discretion in the matter. It can only grant new trials when errors of law hav.e been committed, or when the trial judge has abused his discretion in refusing a new trial.” *Smith*v. *State,*91 *Ga.*188 (17 S. E. 68). See also *Bradham*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*510 (94 S. E. 618), and cit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Exhibit 99.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNB Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William N. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ William N. Smith
------------------------------------------
William N. Smith, Chief Executive Officer
May 12, 2003
Order entered January 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01411-CR

ANTHONY PHIFER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-75027-V

ORDER

The Court GRANTS the January 13, 2015 motion of Lori Ordiway to withdraw as 

appellant’s appointed counsel. We DIRECT the Clerk to remove Ms. Ordiway as appellant’s 

attorney of record.

We ORDER the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal 

and to transmit to this Court, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental 

record containing the order appointing new counsel.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Brandon Birmingham, Presiding Judge, 292nd Judicial District Court; Felicia Pitre, 

Dallas County District Clerk; and to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.
We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated fifteen days from the date of this order or when the order appointing new 

counsel is received.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEDRICK JAMES RUFFIN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0533-CG-C

WALTER MYERS, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00533-CG-C Document 5 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00459-CV

In re Jose Nasipak

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Based on the briefing and the incomplete record, Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a), the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied, see id. R. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Filed: September 23, 2021