alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFL 06.30.13 Ex 10.23






Aflac Incorporated 2nd Quarter 2013 Form 10-Q 
EXHIBIT 10.23
	
		
	NOTICE OF GRANT OF PERFORMANCE BASED RESTRICTED STOCK AND RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
	AFLAC INCORPORATED
ID:      58-1167100
Worldwide Headquarters
1932 Wynnton Road
Columbus, Georgia   31999



	
			
	«name»
	Award Number:
	«Number»

	«Address1»
	Plan:
	«Plan»

	«Address2»
	 
	 

	«Address3»
	 
	 




	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 




Effective «Date», you have been granted an award of «Shares» shares of Aflac Incorporated (the Company) common stock.  The total value of the Award at the date of issue was «Value».


These award shares are restricted until, the attainment of the performance goal(s) set out below:
Shares        Full Vest
«Shares»    Upon Certification of the 2013-2015 Performance Objective


This performance based restricted stock (PBRS) award will vest in full or in part at such time as certified by the Compensation Committee based upon the successful attainment of a statutory accounting basis risk based capital (RBC) ratio of 425% minimum, 475% target and 600% maximum.  For each calendar year, management will earn a PBRS credit of 50% if the minimum RBC ratio is achieved, 100% if the target is attained and 150% if the maximum is attained.  The earned PBRS credit for each year will be based on a pro-rata calculation for a RBC ratio between 425% and 475% or between 475% and 600%.  If the RBC falls below 425%, no credit will be earned for the year.  If the RBC equals or exceeds 600%, 150% credit will be earned for the year.  The three year PBRS award percentage will be the arithmetic average of the PBRS credit earned in each of the three calendar years of the performance period.  However, the final PBRS award credit will not exceed 100%.


Summary of Award Terms:
These shares of restricted stock will be held in book entry form in the custody of the Company until the restrictions thereon have lapsed.  Subject to the restrictions set forth in the Plan and the Restricted Stock Award Agreement relating to this award, you shall possess all incidents of ownership with respect to the Shares, including the right to reinvest dividends with respect to such Shares and to vote such Shares.  In accordance with sections 4(a) and 8(e) of the Plan, any dividends paid on the award shares will be reinvested in Company common stock and held as additional restricted shares in the book entry account subject to the same terms and conditions attributable to the original grant (including this provision regarding reinvestment of dividends), until such time as all restrictions have lapsed on the shares with respect to which the original dividends were paid.


By your signature and the Company's signature below, you and the Company agree that this award is granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Company's amended and restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Restricted Stock Award Agreement relating to this award, which is attached to and made a part of this document.	
				
	 
	 
	 

	by Daniel P. Amos
	  
	Date

	Aflac Incorporated
	  
	 

	 
	 
	  
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	«name»
	 
	Date
#### Nicole Dillard, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[977 NYS2d 226]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered January 28, 2013, which granted the motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff, a resident of a housing development owned and maintained by NYCHA, alleges that she slipped and fell on exterior steps covered in snow and ice, which connect the plaza outside her building to a park area that leads to an adjacent *505public roadway. Defendant NYCHA does not dispute that it had constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition of the steps, which were an intended means of access between the building plaza and the sidewalk by the roadway, but argues, relying on plaintiffs deposition testimony, that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident because it was not foreseeable that she would use those steps, when she knew that alternate paths clear of snow were available.

The issue of proximate cause may be decided “as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts,” but “where there is any doubt, confusion, or difficulty in deciding whether the issue ought to be decided as a matter of law, the better course is to leave the point for the jury to decide” *(White v Diaz,*49 AD3d 134, 139 [1st Dept 2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). In the circumstances presented, the evidence does not establish that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injury, but raises an issue of fact as to her comparative negligence *(see Denardo v Ziatyk,*95 AD3d 929 [2d Dept 2012]; *Ettari v 30 Rampasture Owners, Inc.,*15 AD3d 611 [2d Dept 2005]; *see generally Westbrook v WR Activities-Cabrera Mkts., 5*AD3d 69 [1st Dept 2004]).

The instant case is distinguishable from *Quintana v New York City Hous. Auth.*(91 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2012]), relied on by the motion court, because in that case NYCHA did clear snow from the public walkway, resulting in a mound of snow being piled along the curb, and the plaintiff unforeseeably walked over the mound of snow, outside the crosswalk, rather than using an available cleared path. Here, plaintiff presents evidence that NYCHA did not clear an established pedestrian walkway at all, although it was foreseeable that residents and others would attempt to use it to exit the premises *(see Bergen v Carlin,*297 AD2d 692, 692-693 [2d Dept 2002]). Indeed, another resident, walking with plaintiff, took the same route with her on the night of her accident, and NYCHA’s employee testified that the stairs were supposed to be cleared of snow and ice after the storm.

Defendant’s argument that plaintiffs conduct was a superseding or intervening cause of the accident is without merit since a pedestrian slip is exactly the risk that is expected when a landowner does not clear snow and ice from pedestrian pathways. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, ManzanetDaniels and Gische, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

JAMES EUGENE TYLER JR.,

Appellant.

No. 71407-4-1

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: jul 1 3 2015

Per Curiam - James Tyler Jr. appeals his convictions for furnishing liquor to a

minor and communication with a minor for immoral purposes. He argues that the court

erred in failing to enter written CrR 3.5 findings and conclusions and that we must

remand for their entry. The trial court belatedly entered the findings and conclusions,

however, and Tyler has not alleged any prejudice from their delayed entry. Accordingly,

he fails to demonstrate grounds for relief. State v. Cannon. 130 Wn.2d 313, 329, 922

P.2d 1293 (1996) ("Although the practice of submitting late findings and conclusions is

disfavored, they may be 'submitted and entered even while an appeal is pending' if the

defendant is not prejudiced by the belated entry of findings." (quoting State v. McGarv,

37 Wn. App. 856, 861, 683 P.2d 1125 (1984)); State v. Gaddv. 114 Wn. App. 702, 705,

60 P.3d 116 (2002), affd, 152 Wn.2d 64, 93 P.3d 872 (2004).

Affirmed.

FOR THE COURT: \gi€J(**/-.,f .0 .

r*o

c=> --: * <Wen

£ ~~~-

cz~ S ' '„-,

1 O "v

c> ^r' -*r' ' •- •

.--*",-',

**'—•, f O '"'

Ilv-' ^::;:--' -; —«

O "•-'-' • *
#### In the Matter of Carlos Abreu, Appellant, v Michael F. Hogan, as Commissioner of Mental Health, et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 25, 2012;

decided October 25, 2012

On the Court’s own motion, appeal taken from the January 2012 Appellate Division order dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal from the January 2012 Appellate Division order denied.
---

EXHIBIT 12.1

SARBANES-OXLEY CEO CERTIFICATION

I, Rene G. Carrier, President of Quartz Mountain Resources
Ltd., certify that:

1.          
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Quartz Mountain Resources
Ltd.

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 Company as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;

4.           
The Companys other certifying officers 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)) for the Company and have:

(a)           
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Company, 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 the Company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 the Company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.           
The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the
Companys auditors and the audit committee of Companys board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

(b)           
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial
reporting.

|Date:  | January 26, 2007 | 
|------ | ---------------- | 
|       |                  | 
|       | /s/ Rene Carrier | 
|       |                  | 
|By:    | Rene G. Carrier  | 
|Title: | President        | 

---
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 344 

Expressing support for the designation of May 2, 2019, as a ‘‘National 

Day of Reason’’ and recognizing the central importance of reason in 

the betterment of humanity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2019 

Mr. RASKIN (for himself, Mr. HUFFMAN, and Ms. NORTON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 2, 2019, 

as a ‘‘National Day of Reason’’ and recognizing the 

central importance of reason in the betterment of humanity. 

Whereas the application of reason has been the essential precondition for humanity’s extraordinary scientific, medical, 

technological, and social progress since the modern Enlightenment; 

Whereas reason provides vital hope today for confronting the 

environmental crises of our day, including the 

civilizational emergency of climate change, and for cultivating the rule of law, democratic institutions, justice, 

and peace among nations; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 344 IH 

Whereas America’s Founders insisted upon the primacy of 

reason and knowledge in public life, and drafted the Constitution to prevent official establishment of religion and 

to protect freedom of thought, speech, and inquiry in civil 

society; 

Whereas James Madison, author of the First Amendment 

and fourth President of the United States, stated that, 

‘‘The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only 

guardian of true liberty,’’ and ‘‘Knowledge will forever 

govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own 

governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.’’; and 

Whereas May 2, 2019, would be an appropriate date to designate as a ‘‘National Day of Reason’’: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of a ‘‘National 

3 Day of Reason’’; and 

4 (2) encourages all citizens, residents, and visi5 tors to join in observing this day and focusing on the 

6 central importance of reason, critical thought, the 

7 scientific method, and free inquiry to resolving social 

8 problems and promoting the welfare of humankind. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit 10.3

 

Amendment to Listing Agreement

 

CBRE, Inc.

Brokerage and Management

Licensed Real Estate Broker

 

This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Exclusive Listing Agreement for Sale of Property (“Agreement”) dated January 31, 2013 between the undersigned (“Owner”) and CBRE, INC. (“Broker”) for the real property commonly known as 450 Northridge Parkway located in the city of Sandy Springs, County of Fulton, State of Georgia is entered into as of June 17, 2013.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner and Broker hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

 

A.                                    Paragraph 1 - Term.  The term of the Agreement shall terminate on June 17, 2013.

 

B.                                  Paragraph 4 — Post-Term Protection Rights.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Agreement, Owner shall pay Broker a commission in accordance with the Schedule if, within 197 days after June 17, 2013, Owner enters into a contract of sale of the Property with any of the following prospects (or their successors, assigns, or affiliates): United Sciences Group, Fulton County Schools and Pro-Source Insurance Agency (“Post-Term Prospects”).  Broker is authorized to continue negotiations with the Post-Term Prospects, although Owner and Broker acknowledge and agree that Owner has elected to negotiate directly with United Sciences Group.  Broker shall not be entitled to any commissions with respect to any other parties or entities other than the Post-Term Prospects.  As used herein, “affiliates” means any person or entity directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with Owner and any entity established by such affiliates to purchase the Property.

 

C.                                  Miscellaneous. Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unmodified and in full force and effect.  Any inconsistency or ambiguity arising from this Amendment shall be resolved in favor of this Amendment.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of June 17, 2013.

 

 

	
BROKER:
    	
OWNER:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
CBRE, Inc.,   a Delaware corporation 
   Licensed Real Estate Broker No. 7800
    	
Roberts   Properties Residential, L.P.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   David P. Lanier
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Charles S. Roberts
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
David   P. Lanier
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Charles   S. Roberts
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Sr.   Managing Director
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
President
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Date:
    	
6/18/13
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
June 17,   2013
    


 

 

Georgia Real Estate Firm License No. 7800

 

	
CBRE   Employees
    	
License   #
    
	
Charles   Beard
    	
302245
    
	
Tony   Swann
    	
141121
#### Ervido B. Mejia, Appellant, v Roosevelt Island Medical Associates, Doing Business as Coler-Goldwater Hospital & Nursing Facility, et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 7, 2013;

decided February 14, 2013

*1046Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Rivera taking no part.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

 

----

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended January 29, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   March 10, 2011 | /s/ KAREN   W. KATZ                |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                         | Karen   W. Katz                         |
|                         | President   and Chief Executive Officer |

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

----

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended January 29, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   March 10, 2011 | /s/ JAMES   E. SKINNER                                                     |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | James   E. Skinner                                                              |
|                         | Executive   Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Fred C. Carman, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 819]

*1146Cardona, EJ.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), entered July 6, 2005, which classified defendant as a risk level II sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Upon his plea of guilty, defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and sentenced to six months in jail and 10 years of probation. County Court thereafter classified defendant as a risk level II sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C). In so doing, the court rejected the People’s claim that, based on defendant’s statements in his presentence investigation report, he should receive an additional 10 risk assessment points for failing to accept responsibility for his conduct. The People appeal, contending that defendant should have been classified as a risk level III sex offender.

During his interview with the Probation Department following his plea of guilty, defendant denied that he had engaged in sexual contact with the victim and indicated that he pleaded guilty because of the likelihood that his juvenile record would result in a conviction in the instant case. Furthermore, defendant claimed that the victim had accused defendant in order to get attention from his family. Defendant also intimated that the victim had actually been abused by someone else. Accordingly, notwithstanding the admissions made by defendant during the plea proceeding, we agree with the People that the most recent statements by defendant are clear and convincing evidence of his failure to take personal responsibility for his abusive conduct *(see People v Chilson,*286 AD2d 828 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 655 [2001]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 16 [Nov. 1997] [“An offender who pleads guilty but tells his pre-sentence investigator that he did so only to escape a state prison sentence has not accepted responsibility”]; *see also People v Mitchell,*300 AD2d 377, 378 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 510 [2003]; *compare People v Whalen,*22 AD3d 900, 902 [2005]; *People v Mallory,*293 AD2d 881, 881-882 [2002]).

Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendant is classified as a risk level III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act.
#### In the Matter of Julio Nova, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 749]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered April 19, 2012 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, among other things, granted respondent’s motion to annul his determination and remit for a new hearing.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 *proceeding to*challenge a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating several prison disciplinary rules, including creating a disturbance, violent conduct and assault on staff. Three audio tapes had been used to record the disciplinary hearing, however, upon being informed that one of the audio tapes was defective and inadvertently destroyed, respondent moved to annul the determination and have the matter remitted for a new hearing. Supreme Court thereafter granted respondent’s motion, annulling the challenged determination and remitting the matter for a new disciplinary hearing. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm.

Remittal is required as “[mjeaningful review by this Court is precluded because the hearing transcript is incomplete in significant respects” *(Matter of Tolliver v Fischer,*105 AD3d 1239, 1239 [2013]). We agree with Supreme Court that remittal for a new hearing is the proper remedy in this circumstance, rather than expungement of the disciplinary determination *(see Matter of Barnes v Fischer,*108 AD3d 990, 990-991 [2013]; *Matter of Hayes v Fischer,*95 AD3d 1587, 1588 [2012]; *see also Matter of Farrell v New York State Off. of the Attorney Gen.,*108 AD3d 801 [2013]), and we do not reach petitioner’s remaining contentions related to the annulled determination.

Peters, J.P., Rose, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### In the Matter of Armand Suarez, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 915]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered July 26, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition seeking to annul the Parole Board’s determination denying him parole release. We conclude that the “appeal must be dismissed as moot because the determination expired during the pendency of this appeal, and the Parole Board denied petitioner’s subsequent request for parole release” *(Matter of Robles v Evans,*100 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.