alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

BJ SERVICES COMPANY

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN



WHEREAS, BJ SERVICES COMPANY (the "Company") has heretofore adopted the           BJ SERVICES COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN (the "Plan"); and 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be and hereby is amended as follows, effective as of March 1, 2007: 




	Section 2.1(20) of the Plan shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor:

"(20)Normal Retirement.  A Participant's Termination on or after the later of (i) his sixtieth birthday or (ii) the date he becomes vested pursuant to Article V."


	Article V of the Plan shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor:

"ARTICLE V



Vesting



With respect to an Eligible Employee who becomes a Participant prior to January 1, 2007, the Participant's Vested Percentage shall be zero percent prior to the later of (i) his fifty-fifth birthday or (ii) the date he completes five full Years of Service, and one hundred percent on or after such date; provided, however, that in the event of the Participant's death or disability (as defined in Section 4.7) or a Change of Control, the Participant's Vested Percentage shall be one hundred percent.



With respect to an Eligible Employee who becomes a Participant after December 31, 2006, such Participant's Vested Percentage shall be zero percent prior to the later of (i) his fifty-fifth birthday or (ii) the date he completes five full years of participation in the Plan, and one hundred percent on or after such date; provided, however, that in the event of the Participant's death or disability (as defined in Section 4.7) or a Change of Control, the Participant's Vested Percentage shall be one hundred percent."


	As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.

EXECUTED this 24th day of May, 2007. 

BJ SERVICES COMPANY

By:/s/ Margaret B. Shannon

Name:Margaret B. Shannon

Title:Vice President, General Counsel



3267082_1.DOC
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or

Rule 15d-14(b) and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the
Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the
trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(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 Trust.



|                     |  |                                                                |  |                                                                                                     
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
|                     |  |                                                               
|Date: August 8, 2012 |  | By:                                                            |  | /s/ RON E. HOOPER Ron E. Hooper, Senior Vice President and Trust Administrator Bank of America, N.A.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust
and will be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 09/79-0404 issued to Bay Partners SBIC, L.P., and said license is hereby declared null and void as of May 1, 2009.

United States Small Business Administration.

Harry E. Haskins,

Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. E9-11565 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Rose v. City of Rocky Mount

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 392

No. 017P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1645)

Denied 03/08/07
#### State v. Alexander

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 281

No. 278P06

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-971)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 03/08/07

3. Denied 03/08/07

Hudson, J., Recused
Exhibit 10.29 to Dotronix, Inc. Form 10-KSB dated June 30, 2004




Exhibit 10.29 



Amendment dated June 30, 2004 to

Non-employee Director Stock Option and Stock Grant Plan 



Section 6 (b) is amended to read as
follows: 



	  	“(b)   Annual Option Grants. Beginning in
2004, an option to purchase 2,500 shares of Common Stock shall be granted automatically on the earlier of (i) the first business
day immediately following each annual meeting of the Company’s shareholders for the Company’s previous fiscal year, or
(ii) the last business day of the respective calendar year (the “Annual Option Grant Date”) to each eligible director in
office on such Annual Option Grant Date who prior to such Annual Option Grant Date has received an option pursuant to Section 6(a)
hereof.” 






A new Section 8(c) is added that reads as follows: 



	  	“(c)   One-time
grant. Effective as of July 1, 2004, the Company grants 1,850 shares of Common Stock to each eligible director in office on such
date.”
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

In FR Doc. E9-11077 for Monday, May 11, 2009, (73 FR 21839) in the second column of the Sunshine Act Notice make the following correction:

Revise the sixth line of the third paragraph to read: “The proposed amendments are designed to”.

Dated: May 14, 2009.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-11701 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, John B. Wood, Chief Executive Officer of Telos Corporation, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 17, 2004
#### Alma Ruth HANNAH, Alma Ruth Hannah, as widow of Larry Dwayne Hannah, deceased, Janelle Ruth Hannah, by her mother and next friend Alma Ruth Hannah, Alma Ruth Hannah, as mother of Baby Hannah, deceased, and Alma Ruth Hannah for the Estate of Larry Dwayne Hannah, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Jerry Leon MAJORS, a minor, Melvin Majors, Louise Majors, John Doe and/or Mary Roe and/or John Doe Co., a corporation, Defendants.

Civ. No. 1862.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, Southwestern Division.

April 24, 1964.

Daniel J. Leary and Jack L. Eisen, Joplin, Mo., for plaintiffs.

McReynolds, Flanigan & Flanigan, by George M. Flanigan, Carthage, Mo., for defendants.

Arch L. Williams, Wichita, Kan., for Jerry Majors.

BECKER, District Judge.

In Count I plaintiff Alma Ruth Hannah, a resident citizen of Missouri, sued Jerry Leon Majors, a minor, Melvin Majors and Louise Majors for damages from personal injuries. These defendants are alleged to be residents of Kansas. Also named as defendants are John *180Doe, Mary Roe and John Doe Company, a corporation. These last defendants are not shown to exist. No service has been had on any such defendants. Obviously this is a device to permit the amendment of the complaint if the real names of other defendants are discovered by plaintiff. No residence is stated concerning the Doe defendants.

The same general condition exists in Counts II, III, IY and V except that in Count III the real plaintiff is an infant daughter of the plaintiff in Count I. No state of residence or citizenship of this infant is stated but its residence will be presumed to be Missouri, the residence of its surviving parent.

Defendants move to dismiss for lack of diversity because the state of residence of the Doe defendants is not stated, and because the state of residence of the infant plaintiff in Count III is not stated.

The motion should be denied because no amendment has been permitted to make anyone really existing a defendant in the place of a Doe defendant, and until such an amendment has been permitted the Doe defendant allegations are surplusage. As stated earlier the infant plaintiff in Count III is presumed to have the same residence and citizenship as its mother, namely, Missouri. Therefore it is

Ordered that the motion to dismiss be, and the same is hereby, denied. It is further

Ordered that Melvin Majors be, and he is hereby, appointed guardian *ad litem*for the defendant Jerry Leon Majors, a minor.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         860,502
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  183,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,234,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,878
<PP&E>                                         74,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                 35,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,424,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,719,926
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,369
<OTHER-SE>                                     699,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,424,245
<SALES>                                        4,811,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,811,762
<CGS>                                          2,784,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,260,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (8,201)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             50,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (276,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,286
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (279,358)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (279,358)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.07)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties II Limited Partnership 1997 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000319723
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,367
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       15
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          24,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          8,645
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,214
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,793
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    222
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                222
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       222
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.00<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Kenneth J. Lewis et al., Appellants, v New York State Department of Civil Service et al., Respondents. Margaret Godfrey et al., Appellants, v Andrew J. Spano et al., Respondents. New York State Comptroller, Intervenor-Respondent.

Submitted September 14, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 216; 57 AD3d 941.

Motion by New York Civil Liberties Union et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeals herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 593 

To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that the provisions 

relating to countervailing duties apply to nonmarket economy countries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2005 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BURR, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. BYRD, Ms. MIKULSKI, 

Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. PRYOR, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. BAUCUS, and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide 

that the provisions relating to countervailing duties apply 

to nonmarket economy countries. 

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 ‘‘Stopping Overseas 

5 Subsidies Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 593 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO 

2 NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRIES. 

3 Section 701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

4 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(including 

5 a nonmarket economy country)’’ after ‘‘country’’ each 

6 place it appears. 

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

8 The amendments made by section 2 apply to petitions 

9 filed under section 702 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
The District Court of the 3rd Judicial District. County of Deer Lodge.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT WILLIAMS, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-07-46 NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER TO CORRECT DECISION

The Decision of August 5, 2010 of the Sentence Review Division was incorrect in that the Decision stated there were two felony charges instead of one felony charge due to one of the felony charges being dismissed by Order of the Montana Supreme Court on March 23, 2010.

Now, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AD JUDGED AND DECREED THAT the August 5, 2010 Decision, Paragraph one, shall be amended to read as follows:

On February 25,2009, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: Thirty (30) years in the Montana State Prison, with five (5) years suspended, for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a Felony. It was further ordered by the Court that the Defendant shall be designated a Level-2 Sexual Offender. The Defendant shall not be eligible for parole until he has completed successfully Phases I and II of the prison’s Sexual Offender Treatment Program. The Defendant shall also participate in Phase III sexual offender treatment while in prison.

DATED this 13th day of October, 2010

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00232-CR

JAMIE LEE HEWETT,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-02-14500-BCCR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jamie Lee Hewett was found guilty of the state-jail felony offense of evading 

arrest in a motor vehicle and was assessed a twenty-four months’ sentence in state jail 

and a $1,000 fine. Hewett appealed.

Hewett’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in 

his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 

18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although informed of his right to do so, Hewett did not file a pro 
Hewett v. State Page 2

se response to the Anders brief.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... 

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; accord Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or 

“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 

U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). We have conducted 

an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly 

frivolous, we affirm the judgment.

We grant appointed counsel’s amended motion to withdraw from representation 

of Hewett. Notwithstanding this grant, appointed counsel must send Hewett a copy of 

our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and 

send this Court a letter certifying counsel’s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2006).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed April 25, 2012

Do not publish

[CR25]