alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document

Exhibit 4.11


AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX
TO THE
TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
TAX-DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN
WHEREAS, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted and maintains for the benefit of eligible employees of the Company and certain subsidiaries of the Company the “Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Tax-Deferred Savings Plan” (the “Plan”); 
WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently amended and restated, effective as of January 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan (i) to reflect recent legal guidance governing participant notices related to the Plan’s status as a “safe harbor” plan within the meaning of sections 401(k)(13) and 401(m)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code and (ii) to fully vest the account balances of participants impacted by recent headcount reductions.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 14.1 of the Plan, the Plan hereby is amended as follows:
(1)  Effective as of January 1, 2018, the final sentence of Section 4.5 hereby is amended to read as follows:
Within a reasonable period prior to the beginning of each Plan Year (or in the case of the Plan Year in which an individual becomes an Eligible Employee, within a reasonable period prior to such individual commencing participation in the Plan), or at such other time permitted or required by law, the Employers shall provide each Eligible Employee with a notice of his or her rights and obligations under the Plan that satisfies the requirements of Treasury Regulation Section 1.401(k)-3(k)(4).
(2)  Effective as of May 1, 2017, the following new Appendix W hereby is added to the Plan:


TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
TAX-DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN
APPENDIX W

SPECIAL RULES FOR EMPLOYEES IMPACTED BY 2017 RESTRUCTURINGS
Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, a Participant shall be fully vested in his or her Account if such Participant was identified by the Company as subject to termination of employment due to the following headcount reductions by the Employers and Affiliates:  
•Headcount reduction in May 2017 as a result of change in strategy within the CLEC operations to focus in the Madison, Fox Valley and Milwaukee markets
•Headcount reduction in July 2017 as a result of closing seven Company cable retail offices (Cortez, CO; Lovington, NM; TOC, NM; Alpine, TX; Fort Stockton, TX; Seminole, TX; and Socorro, NM) to walk-in customers


*     *     *     *     *








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment Number Six to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 15th day of November, 2017.


						
	TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	/s/ Daniel J. DeWitt
		Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Vice President Human Resources
		
	By:	/s/ LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr.
		Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Vice President Human Resources
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 3 TO 5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         179,107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    796,640
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,205,339
<PP&E>                                       3,549,557
<DEPRECIATION>                               (380,158)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,563,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,787,814
<BONDS>                                        548,055
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       120,412
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,107,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,563,487
<SALES>                                        238,845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,845
<CGS>                                        (142,549)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  329,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (234,387)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (234,387)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (234,387)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3200 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3200

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2010

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ZACHARY SMITH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Zachary Smith Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Zachary Smith 
Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Job TAYLOR, a/k/a Raymond Filler, a/k/a Job Shinel, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-5180.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 29, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 30, 2006.

*294Steven M. Hisker, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Job Taylor pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 851 (2000), and one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). As part of the plea agreement, the parties agreed that if Taylor did not earn a motion for downward departure pursuant to *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 5K1.1 (2004), a sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment was appropriate. Taylor did not earn a downward departure motion, and the district court sentenced Taylor to 262 months in prison.

Taylor timely appealed. Taylor’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that in his opinion there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but asserting that the plea hearing failed to comply with all the requirements under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, counsel noted that the district court failed to inform Taylor that, in accordance with his plea agreement, he would receive a 262-month sentence if he failed to earn a § 5K1.1 motion for downward departure. We find no plain error because any failure to comply with Rule 11 did not affect Taylor’s substantial rights. *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); *see also United States v. Martinez,*277 F.3d 517, 532 (4th Cir.2002) (holding that “plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the Rule 11 context”).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Taylor’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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.

*AFFIRMED.*
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60151

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERRY LEE QUINN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CR-83-S-D

- - - - - - - - - -

October 17, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Lee Quinn appeals the magistrate judge’s denial of his

motion for the return of certain property seized during a search

of his residence. This court must examine the basis of its

jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby,

813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Appellate courts are without

jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates. 

United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir.), cert.
No. 96-60151

- 2 -

denied, 449 U.S. 921 (1980). Therefore, Quinn’s appeal of the

magistrate judge’s denial of his motion for return of property

seized must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### The People of the State of New York, by Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Appellant, v Wells Fargo Insurance Services, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 6, 2010;

decided December 14, 2010

Motion by Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
-

MD Helicopters MD600

Audio Requirements for USFS Cooperators 

[I] 

[I] 

A B 

C D 

TX - Radio Transmit Capability

RX - Radio Receive Capability 

ICS- Intercom Capability 

A or B RX/ICS - Either Right Door 

PAX Seat

April 9, 2024

C or D RX/ICS - Either Left Door 

PAX Seat
MD Helicopters MD600 

Audio Requirements for USFS Contracted 

Helicopters Approved for Passengers

- [I] 

[I] 

A

RX

ICS

RX

ICS

A or B TX - Either Right Door 

PAX Seat 

C or D TX - Either Left Door 

PAX Seat 

TX - Radio Transmit Capability

RX - Radio Receive Capability 

ICS- Intercom Capability 

B

RX

ICS

C

RX

ICS

D

RX

ICS
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit

No. 03-1027 DEBORAH J. BARNES, Plaintiff , Appella nt,

v. FLEET NATI ONAL BANK, N .A.; FLEETBOSTON F INANCI AL CORPORATIO

N, Defend ants, App ellees.

Errata Sheet The opinion of this Court issued on June 2, 2004 is corrected as follows: On the cover sheet replace " Rosemarin " with " Rosmarin "
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 EXHIBIT 11

     CALCULATIONS OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON AND COMMON  EQUIVALENT SHARE AND
EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE ASSUMING FULL DILUTION


(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                                              Common and Common
Four Months Ended September 30, 1996                              Equivalent
-----------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                 <C>
Net loss available to common stockholders                           $(22,009)
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                         10,034
Loss per common share                                                 $(2.19)

</TABLE>
     Due to the  implementation of the Reorganization and Fresh Start Reporting,
per  share  data for the  Predecessor  Company  has been  excluded  because  the
information is not comparable.  
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

EXHIBIT 21
SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF ANACOMP, INC.

                                State or Country    Voting Securities
Name                             of Incorporation            Owned *
<S>                                 <C>                        <C>
Anacomp, GmbH.....                  Germany                    100%
Anacomp, Ltd.                       United Kingdom             100%
Anacomp, S.A......                  France                     100%
Xidex (U.K.) Ltd..                  United Kingdom             100%

* Directly or indirectly

</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 321 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State 

to accept passport cards at air ports of entry and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2009 

Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. TESTER, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 

Secretary of State to accept passport cards at air ports 

of entry 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 ‘‘Passport Card Travel 

5 Enhancement Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PASSPORT CARD DEFINED. 

7 In this Act, the term ‘‘passport card’’ means the doc8 ument— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 321 IS

1 (1) known as a passport card that is issued to 

2 a national of the United States on the same basis 

3 as a regular passport; and 

4 (2) that the Secretary of State began issuing 

5 during 2008. 

6 SEC. 3. PASSPORT CARDS FOR AIR TRAVEL. 

7 (a) REQUIREMENT TO ACCEPT PASSPORT CARDS

8 FOR AIR TRAVEL.—Notwithstanding any regulation 

9 issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Sec10 retary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security and 

11 the Secretary of State shall permit a passport card issued 

12 to a citizen of the United States to serve as proof of iden13 tity and citizenship of such citizen if such citizen is depart14 ing from or entering the United States through an air port 

15 of entry for travel that terminates or originates in— 

16 (1) Bermuda; 

17 (2) Canada; 

18 (3) a foreign country located in the Caribbean; 

19 or 

20 (4) Mexico. 

21 (b) FEES FOR PASSPORT CARDS.—Neither the Sec22 retary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security 

23 may increase, or propose an increase to, the fee for 

24 issuance of a passport card as a result of the requirements 

25 of subsection (a). 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•S 321 IS

1 (c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

3 State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue 

4 final regulations to implement this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Robert B. Pollock, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 16, 2005                                             /s/ Robert B. Pollock   Robert B. Pollock   President and Chief Executive Officer
.. . L ,>;. -,-:lL.-vc:y .?,-!7:;n;;L.-:: . ?i27.Lt;!?c!1r! i: d::!cr;c! ;TI-;-, b;, !- ,L~ I--I.,..w+: .. .?. , -ht. .,- 

-2 ..,.... , : -,::';. -- . % -%, :i:;s:, ,:: ::.?.:..:.. , =::-;. ,,+ :: fc(!+.:i!F%. ~.-<;-<;~!:vyC<. .? ::;<,*;.;: . ::.:'lcq :::;:: . .:I\. . . .. ;;;.- ;.! -';; \,..y: ,I>.+ '.- :. ". , .- .. ,. ... . ,*:::?ir (-(;-?;::-!s<:(*:l : y I<;<' ;. rC[::-;--; I,,> !!l,< 

,. . .- I* ',... ,. .,I - , --,. [. :.- . -<. ,, ,! it' rn=:.<:-!-,;!:-'< y{\:jbc {,?'-L':!,!;*:,(~:, \',,.. \-:->-,, +[I<*; -- .*.... . .I -- .... %.I ... .. 

- .. . , , .= . . wL+ ;;-,: :-:,-,a,..,.*,.- . 4. , -,-,. .< .>.,,) :..,. ,,. ,.,,, ,,,*b,! :<-. <,.L+:.L:;,+. *:.[< ;iL- ;!.,.:. I?!;- - . ..-. . .c. . . .. . .. . . I.! ... ... lr Ia=..L... -. -, . -, .. . , ._< --. , i.. ,. :,-:: .. ,a , - .,.,. ., 1 ..,, ,;-,: c.-,., <.T-,ii V.6 . . 7.7: -.- ,,. .." .L> .-% .-.C -. ..- ,.,> :!.A>. c '-:L::::('->: 
..... .... <.. ,*...... ',,.,. . :t.c!:+ ... :::: L?--:,.,b i:::7+=r.;-c!:f .L... :. L.L.!-, . ::. ,. ....-.. ,r ;.'- r .:.q:.~q-,.7 '. . _. .- . - , . *. * ,- . 2 ,'. 

'.'. .,, .: ',- ...!-? ,.,. y.,t. yL.r \, :-;-; ,,-I-, , - ...... .. . .................. . . i . .'.... >... .... .t ............. .,;:: :::, ,<.: 1 :i'::-:,:-- 

,? *- ,-.*'! b ...< . . +. . . ...... , . ......... . ...:....... L . ....... , . -*-, n, -. ,,,. >:-: ;?;.!<: I>&. :;I, ..\,::-;!;? ;!I?< >< t77:.;; 77, l~<ln:l 

.',. ,.! , I.. :-. 

- -.. ... 1 -1 

.- - ,. ,. ., .. . . .;- i-,..!~*..,. <!..,!! !,;. ;: L,., M.,. i ;;! :,. ,,::.3 b'.. 

. - .. ... ,. . . ., ,<. .!::::'-.? .::;:- ' -:, ".. ..,.,. ..,..> . ...- +, , .. $>' : ::'t:l . , . -. ............ -c \,;;;:. .,.>. ,*.. -.- -.. - -. . , 8 1, < :-: L.r! . , ..-:: - * ,.'. :k=3\. .,:. .: ..,.. ........ \. - .... <. ........ .,-L ,..*. 11.1 

--- .'l!Tc-.; :... -:, *'t' , . r.: , -- .,,.. -. ,- - 

f., >:--- 9-..I.. . . ,. . - .-. ..... ...... ...... .......... .,L .... > -< .3-,., <,.;;-;,L.\5;., :!:+yL.; ;;!c; *.,<. ..(a,. .,,c .- . . , . ,,,, 

- . . . -. , < L...,,.,. .- .- . . ..... ......... -- . . .. !-!::: r ;-;. i:::!., ,.:.: :: * - A ...... - .-., !.,..' ..,* ::- --.,. . ........ ..... .-- .. ,.-- ...... ., .-.;...... !.,. ->.,.; .... . '‘.>C' :.-- . ..,: ... ""'.. ... .r ......... -. -.. ... ,%. .... .& , ..[. ';::I., .,',. ... .. ---.... ,...* :.1:..-.
#### Wooster *v.*Blake and others.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

June 20, 1881.)

1. Equity Pb actice—Rule 34.

Rule 34 of the rules ef practice prescribed by the supreme court for the courts of equity of the United States, requires that on overruling a plea the defendant shall be allowed to answer; that léave must be given to it.

In Equity.

*F. H. Betts,*for complainant.

*W. H. L. Lee,*for defendants.

Blatchford, C. J.

The company is willing to have its plea overruled. That is all the plaintiff can ask. But rule 34 requires that on overruling a plea the defendant shall be allowed to answer; that leave must be given to it. A preliminary injunction will be issued against the other defendants on the claims of the Bobjohn patent, which was adjudicated upon in the decision; but if such an injunction is asked for against the company, it must be moved for on papers and notice. An order will be settled on notice.