alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HR-2015.06.30-EX 10.4


Exhibit 10.4




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 2010 RESTRICTED STOCK
IMPLEMENTATION FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


This Amendment No. 2 to the 2010 Restricted Stock Implementation For Non-Employee Directors (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective August 4, 2015 by the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Healthcare Realty Trust Incorporated (the “Company”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2010, the Board of Directors adopted the 2010 Restricted Stock Implementation for Non-Employee Directors, as amended on December 11, 2013 (the “Directors Plan”), which provides for the issuance of shares of restricted stock to directors of the Company under the 2007 Employees Stock Incentive Plan, which was approved by the shareholders of the Company on May 15, 2007 and amended by the Company on December 21, 2007 (the “2007 Plan”); 
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the Company’s shareholders approved the Healthcare Realty Trust Incorporated 2015 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2015 Plan”);
WHEREAS, the 2015 Plan supersedes the 2007 Plan by its terms with respect to grants of awards that occur after May 12, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Committee desires to continue the Directors Plan under the 2015 Plan.
AMENDMENT:
		
	1.
	Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meanings attributed to such terms in the 2007 Plan, the 2015 Plan, and/or the Directors Plan, as applicable. 




		
	2.
	Amendment. With respect to any grants of awards under the Directors Plan that occur after May 12, 2015, all references in the Directors Plan to the 2007 Plan are hereby deleted and the 2015 Plan is inserted in the stead thereof. For any awards under the Stock Programs that were granted on May 12, 2015 or earlier, the terms of the 2007 Plan shall continue to control.




		
	3.
	Miscellaneous. Nothing contained herein will confer upon any Participant the right to be retained in the service of the Company, nor will it interfere with the Company’s right to discharge or otherwise deal with Participants without regard to the existence of this Amendment. In the event that it shall become impossible for the Company to perform any act required by the Amendment due to regulatory or other constraints, the Company may perform such alternative acts as most nearly carries out the intent and purpose of this Amendment and is in the best interests of the Company, provided that such alternative acts do not violate Code Section 409A. This Amendment shall be interpreted and administered consistent with Code Section 409A.




		
	4.
	Reaffirmation. All other terms and conditions of the Directors Plan are herein reaffirmed in their entirety.




		
	5.
	Term. The Directors Plan, as amended hereby, shall continue in effect as long as the 2015 Plan is in effect or until terminated by the Committee.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Healthcare Realty Trust Incorporated has caused this Amendment to be executed this 4th day of August, 2015.





Exhibit 10.4




HEALTHCARE REALTY TRUST INCORPORATED






___/s/ Andrew E. Loope______________
Andrew E. Loope
Senior Vice President and Corporate Counsel
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________ 

Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 48909 

C hief Justice Justices 

Maura D. Corrigan	 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Clifford W. Taylor Opinion Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman 

FILED JUNE 4, 2002
 

T. PAUL KEENAN,
 

Plaintiff-Appellant,
 

v	 No. 120277
 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
 

Defendant-Appellee.
 

MEMORANDUM OPINION
 

Plaintiff is a prisoner who filed a complaint against
 

defendant Department of Corrections in a circuit court.
 

Summary disposition in favor of the defendant was granted by
 

order of the court under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Plaintiff filed a
 

claim of appeal with the Court of Appeals which that Court
 

dismissed because plaintiff had not paid the remainder of a
 

filing fee due in a prior case filed with the Court of
 

Appeals. Plaintiff seeks leave to appeal. In lieu of
 

granting leave to appeal, we affirm.
 
This case is governed by MCL 600.2963. Subsection 3 of
 

that section requires a prisoner filing a civil action or
 

appeal to pay a certain partial filing fee based on activity
 

in the prisoner’s institutional account for the preceding
 

twelve months. Subsection 5 creates a procedure for the
 

Department of Corrections to collect the remaining portion of
 

the filing fee in monthly installments from the prisoner’s
 

account. Key to the instant dispute is subsection 8, which
 

indicates:
 

A prisoner who has failed to pay outstanding


fees and costs as required under this section shall


not commence a new civil action or appeal until the


outstanding fees and costs have been paid.
 

Plaintiff argues that he has not “failed” to pay
 

outstanding fees because the remainder of the filing fee is
 

being taken out of his account on a monthly basis under
 

subsection 5. This argument is inconsistent with the plain
 

wording of the statute. Subsection 8 conditions future
 

appeals in civil actions on payment of “outstanding fees and
 

costs” in prior actions. The term “outstanding fees” refers
 

to the difference between the full filing fee and the partial
 

filing fee set under subsection 3. Plaintiff concedes that he
 

still owes a portion of the filing fee in the prior case.
 

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed his
 

claim of appeal. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we
 

affirm the order of the Court of Appeals on this point. In
 

all other respects, we deny the delayed application for leave
 

2
 
to appeal because we are not persuaded that the remaining
 

questions should be reviewed by this Court.
 

CORRIGAN, C.J., and CAVANAGH, WEAVER, KELLY, TAYLOR, YOUNG, and
 

MARKMAN, JJ., concurred.
 

3
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Composite Technology Corporation
(Company) on Form 10-QSB/A (Report) for the quarter ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof. I, Benton
H Wilcoxon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Benton H Wilcoxon
---------------------
Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer

Dated: February 3, 2004
       -----------------

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Composite Technology Corporation
(Company) on Form 10-QSB/A (Report) for the quarter ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof. I, Benton
H Wilcoxon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Benton H Wilcoxon
---------------------
Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: February 3, 2004
       -----------------
**Exhibit 10.15****EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT**     The undersigned and AdStar, Inc., hereby agree that upon the effective date of the newEmployment Agreement between them to be executed on the date hereof, the annual rate ofcompensation specified therein shall be reduced by five percent (5%) to a rate of $202,160 perannum, such reduction to continue until 10 days after the undersigned provides written notice toAdStar of the revocation of this voluntary salary reduction, or in the absence of notice, until theexpiration of the term of the Agreement.Dated: December 21, 2005        AdStar, Inc.       by:       Leslie Bernhard   Eli Rousso,    Executive Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2087 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2087

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, 
   Administrative Office of the US Courts, Salaries and Expenses for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, 
   Administrative Office of the US Courts, Salaries and Expenses for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE JUDICIARY, 
              ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE US COURTS, SALARIES AND 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for The Judiciary, 
Administrative Office of the US Courts, Salaries and Expenses for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $92,413,000.
                                 <all>
```
11776.

#### Stoufer *v.*Missenheimer.

Decided March 26, 1921.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. June 34, 1930.

*Morris Machs, J. O. Wood, Samuel A. Massell,*for plaintiff.

*McQallum & Sims,*for defendant.

Stephens, J.

1. It is the duty of a justice of the peace or other tribunal or person whose decision is sought to be reviewed upon certiorari, when answering the writ of certiorari, to certify and send up all of the proceedings in the cause to the superior court as directed in the writ of certiorari. Civil Code (1910), § 5183. The judge of the superior court therefore erred in overruling the exceptions to the answer of the trial judge upon the ground that copies of the pleadings and other parts of the record were not certified and sent up with the answer.

2. An assignment of error in a petition for certiorari, that the trial judge expressed an opinion upon the facts, without reciting what opinion was expressed, but merely reciting “ the exact evidence that the court stated being disclosed in the stenographic report,” is insufficient and presents no question for determination. It was therefore not error to overrule an exception to the answer upon the ground that the answer fails to either admit or deny the allegations of fact contained in the assignment of error. ■

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Mill, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1885 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1885

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
   Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Chief 
              Administrative Officer for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
   Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Chief 
              Administrative Officer for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE OF 
              THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer 
for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $148,058,000.
                                 <all>
```
OAKWOOD ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
                     SERVICER'S ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

                        OAKWOOD MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC.
                  SENIOR/SUBORDINATED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
                                  SERIES 1999-C

Pursuant to Section 3.13(a) of the Standard Terms to Pooling and Servicing
Agreement (May 1999 Edition) which is incorporated in the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated June 1, 1999 among Oakwood Mortgage Investors, Inc., Oakwood
Acceptance Corporation (the "Servicer") and Chase Manhattan Trust Co., the
undersigned officer of the Servicer hereby certifies that a review of the
activities of the Servicer during the period October 1, 1999 through September
30, 2000 and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has
been made under his supervision and to the best of his knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement through such period.



By: /s/ Earl C Brewer, Jr

Name: Earl C Brewer, Jr

Title: Vice President

Date: September 30, 2000
[968 NYS2d 905]

#### In the Matter of Dean Weber (Admitted as Dean Gary Weber), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

July 31, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert A. Green,*Hauppauge *(Leslie B. Anderson*of counsel), for petitioner.

*25OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The instant matter emanates from an opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dated August 3, 2012, which suspended the respondent from the practice of law before that Court for a period of one year. The suspension is predicated upon a finding that the respondent violated Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication) and 8.4 (d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) in connection with, inter alia, his mishandling of a bankruptcy matter.

On October 19, 2012, the respondent was personally served with notice pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department (22 NYCRR) § 691.3, which advised him of his right to file, within 20 days, a verified statement setting forth any of the defenses to the imposition of reciprocal discipline enumerated in 22 NYCRR 691.3 (c).

The respondent submitted a verified statement in which he admitted that he mishandled the subject bankruptcy matter, described numerous mitigating circumstances, and requested leniency. Inasmuch as he failed to set forth any of the defenses enumerated in 22 NYCRR 691.3, and did not request a hearing before this Court, there is no impediment to the imposition of reciprocal discipline.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the application of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District is granted, and the respondent is publicly censured.

Eng, PJ, Rivera, Skelos, Dillon and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the petitioner’s application to impose reciprocal discipline is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is publicly censured.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONNIE E. SHROPSHIRE, #175941, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00073-KD-B

:

STANDARD FURNITURE CO., :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of 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)(l)(B) and dated March 6, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of

fees (Doc. 2) is DENIED, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and this action shall be counted as a strike for purposes of future IFP 

eligibility under Section 1915(g) in that it is malicious.

DONE and ORDERED this the 6th day of April 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00073-KD-B Document 5 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,746
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,000
<PP&E>                                          94,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,634
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,858
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,128
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (156,311)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                60,746
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                       405
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,380)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy Edgar KNOX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7641.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 3, 2001.

*93Tracy Edgar Knox, pro se. James Ash-ford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Janet S. Reincke, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Tracy Edgar Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Knox,*Nos. CR-98-13; CA-00-115 (E.D.Va. Oct. 3, 2000). 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.*
### NUMBER 13 - 1 8 - 00 668 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ADRIANA RAMIREZ , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 105 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina Order Per Curiam Appellant ’ s brief was due on September 9, 2019 . Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2), on September 10, 2019 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant ’ s counsel that the brief had not be en timely filed, requested counsel to file a response concerning the failure to file the brief within ten days, and warned counsel that2

the Court would abate and remand this cause to the trial court for appropriate findings if a response was not filed. Co unsel has nevertheless failed to file either a response or an appellate brief in this matter. Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of A ppellate Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) why appellant's counsel has fail ed to file a brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should be removed; and (5) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to cou rt
- appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal, that present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to
court
- appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel t o represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing
counsel. The trial court shall cause its finding s and reco mmendations, together with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supp lemental clerk's record and supplemental3

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order. It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 27 th d ay of Sep tember , 201 9

.