alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.3.a
                             FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
                         ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
                           DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


         Effective  January  1,  1978,   ARIZONA  PUBLIC  SERVICE  COMPANY  (the
"Company") adopted the ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
(the "Plan").  The Plan was subsequently  amended and restated several times and
was the most recent  amendment and  restatement  becoming  effective  January 1,
1984. The Plan was thereafter  amended on December 22, 1986,  December 23, 1987,
April 4, 1993, and August 1, 1994. By this  instrument,  the Company  desires to
amend the Plan to change the retirement  date on which  participants  may retire
and receive benefits.

         1. This  Amendment  shall amend only the  provisions of the Plan as set
forth  herein,  and those  provisions  not  expressly  amended  hereby  shall be
considered in full force and effect.

         2.       Section IV.A.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:

                           2. Separation from employment after attainment by the
                  Participant  of the  age of  fifty-five  (55)  years  if  such
                  Participant  has been  credited with ten (10) Years of Service
                  (as defined  below);  for purposes of this Section,  "Years of
                  Service"  shall have the same  meaning as that given it in the
                  Arizona Public Service Company Employees'  Retirement Plan, as
                  amended  (which  definition  is  incorporated  herein  by this
                  reference);

         3.       The  provisions  of this  Amendment  shall be  effective as of
                  January 1, 1997.
<PAGE>

         Except as amended  and  supplemented  by this  instrument,  the Company
hereby ratifies the Plan as restated  effective  January 1, 1984, and thereafter
amended.

                            DATED: December 18, 1996



                    ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

                    By:  Nancy C. Loftin
                       ---------------------------------
                       Its:  Vice President, Chief Legal Counsel and Secretary
                           ----------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,522
<SECURITIES>                                 1,122,936
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,152,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,856
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,124,326
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,152,182
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,932
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,932
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,932
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,932
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


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

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 824098
<NAME> SCOTTSDALE LAND TRUST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U. S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                              1
<CASH>                                               2,021,112
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                         16,337,102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             0
<PP&E>                                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      26,070,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        0
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                          25,897,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        26,070,903
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       237,513
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         54,740
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     54,740
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                            54,740
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2 Stock Grant Notice Letter



		

			EXHIBIT 10.2

		




		
			 
		

		
			[Date] 
		

		
			 
		

		
			<Name>
		

		
			<Address>
		

		
			<City, State, Zip>
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dear <Name>:
		

		
			 
		

		
			This letter serves as notification that CarMax, Inc. (“CarMax” or the “Company”) hereby grants you _______ shares of CarMax Common Stock pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Company’s 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated, and in consideration of your service to the Company as a director for the year [____].  This annual retainer grant is based on an average market price of $______ and has a $[___,___] market value, as approved by the Company’s board of directors.
		

		
			 
		

		
			If you have not already done so, at your earliest convenience, you will need to notify _______________ as to whether you would like the shares issued in a certificate or wired to a brokerage account.
		

		
			 
		

		
			If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ______________.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Sincerely,
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Thomas W. Reedy
		

		
			Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0511

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

BRADLEY ALAN STOKES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Randal I. Spaulding, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 4 2023

10/04/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0511
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000822658
<NAME>                        Whitney American Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,129
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (105,130)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,775)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,775)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,775)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,775)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 4.13
  
  Terms of appointment as non-executive director
 Bank
 Disclosure of interests and other relevant information
  APRA
 Remuneration and expenses
 NEDSP




---



##### 



Term of appointment and vacation of office
       Board meetings




---



##### 



Board committees
  Time commitment envisaged
   Indemnity, insurance and access to Bank documents
  Charters and policies
  
    
    Board charter;
    
    Board Corporate Governance Guidelines;
    
    The Banks Constitution;
    
    Securities trading guidelines;
    
    Guidelines for communication between the Bank and shareholders;
    
    Taking of independent professional advice by directors;
    
    Code of ethics entitled Statement of Professional Practice;
    
    External Auditor Services Policy;
    
    Equal Employment Opportunity Policy; and
    
    Occupational Health and Safety Systems.
  Notification of interests to ASX




---



##### 



Continuing education arrangements
       John M Schubert
 Acknowledgment
  /s/ Warwick Kent
    
    22/07/05Signature
    
    Date
Exhibit 31(b)

CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC.        CERTIFICATION

I,
John R. Collins, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Constellation Energy Group, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 financial information 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a15(f) and 15d15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
February 27, 2008

|/s/JOHN R. COLLINS                                   |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Steven Rosenberg, Appellant, v Home Box Office, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 921]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered March 6, 2006, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissing the third and fourth causes of action and dismissing the complaint outright as against defendant Time Warner, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 8, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as indicated, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The defamation cause of action was insufficiently pleaded. Plaintiff failed to plead the time, place and manner in which the alleged words were stated, or any specifics as to third persons to whom the words were communicated *(see Williams v Varig Brazilian Airlines,*169 AD2d 434, 437 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 854 [1991]). The court properly declined to consider the belated assertion of injurious falsehood, for which we note that plaintiff failed to plead injury to any legally protected property interest *(Miller v Richman,*184 AD2d 191, 194 [1992]) or special damages *(Rail v Heilman,*284 AD2d 113, 114 [2001]). As to the promissory estoppel claim, plaintiff failed to plead a promised personal action by the individual defendant, or reasonable, detrimental reliance on any such promise.

Because the defamation and injurious falsehood claims are *551without merit, whether or not those claims apply to Time Warner is academic. Plaintiffs argument that he pleaded breach of contract against that party is made for the first time on appeal, in contradiction to a concession made to the motion court, as quoted in the order on appeal. Were we to consider the argument, we would reject it. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6872

JAMES BILLY HENRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN MAHN, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-175-7) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 3, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Billy Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Billy Henry seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999), for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Because Henry failed to challenge the basis for the district court's ruling in his informal brief, he has not preserved the issue for our review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Henry v. Mahn , No. CA-99-175- 7 (W.D. Va. June 11, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                         115,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  384,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               577,657
<PP&E>                                         871,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                 344,791
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,873,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,511,696
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,437
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,272,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,873,145
<SALES>                                         87,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,428
<CGS>                                           34,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  251,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (167,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (167,291)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (167,291)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.58)
        

</TABLE>
#### James Edward THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-6132.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2006.

Decided: June 29, 2006.

James Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, denying it, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that rea*382sonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### ROYSTER v. RUGGERIO.

No. 2707.

District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

Sept. 29, 1941.

Harold Goodman, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Vandeveer & Haggerty, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant.

LEDERLE, District Judge.

This case having come on before this court for a Pre-Trial Hearing in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and it appearing to the court that the plaintiff is a citizen of this District and that defendant is a citizen of Ohio, and the claim for damages exceeds $3,000; that this action arises out of an automobile collision which occurred February 6, 1941, in Detroit, Michigan; that the complaint claims this collision resulted from the negligence of defendant, and in his answer defendant pleads contributory negligence as an affirmative defense; that on June 28, 1941, at Indianapolis, Indiana, defendant was inducted into military service of the United States, and that such service has not yet terminated; that the ability to conduct the defense of this action is materially affected by reason of defendant’s military service;

Now, Therefore, It Is Ordered that the prosecution of this action be, and it is hereby, stayed and postponed as provided by the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1918, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 101 et seq., as amended and supplemented by the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 301 et seq., and the case will accordingly be continued on the Pre-Trial Docket of this court for such period of postponement.

It Is Further Ordered that the defendant, or his attorney, shall notify the court and the attorney for the plaintiff, in writing, forthwith upon termination of such military service.