alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


             


             


            Performance Criteria for 2009-2011 under the Company's Long-Term Incentive Plan


             


            For the 2009-2011 cycle of the Company’s Long-Term Incentive Plan, the corporate financial performance objectives, which the Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors approved on March 9, 2009, relate to (i) improvements in the Company’s earnings per share and (ii) total shareholder return relative to the S&P 500.
EXHIBIT 21A

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF WPL HOLDINGS, INC. 

   The subsidiaries and affiliates of as of December 31, 1996, are as
   follows:

   Name of Subsidiary
   % of Voting Stock Owned Directly or
   Indirectly by the Company                                  State of Incor.

   A.   Wisconsin Power and Light Company (100%)                    Wisconsin
        1.   South Beloit Water, Gas and Electric Company (100%)    Illinois 

        2.   REAC, Inc (100%)                                       Wisconsin

        3.   Wisconsin River Power Company (33-1/3%)                Wisconsin

        4.   Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company (13%)             Wisconsin

   B.   Heartland Development Corporation (98.91%)                  Wisconsin

        1.   Energy Services

             a.   Heartland Energy Services, Inc. (100%)            Wisconsin

             b.   Enserv, Inc. (100%)                               Wisconsin

        2.   Environmental Services
          
             a.   Environmental Holding Company (95%)               Wisconsin

             b.   RMT, Inc. (100%)                                  Wisconsin

             c.   Jones & Neuse, Inc. (100%)                        Wisconsin

             d.   QES, Inc. (100%)                                  Wisconsin

        3.   Affordable Housing

             a.   Heartland Properties, Inc. (100%)                 Wisconsin

             b.   Tool Kit Property Management 
                  Systems, Inc. (100%)                              Wisconsin

             c.   Capital Square Financial Corp. (100%)             Wisconsin

             d.   Heartland Capital Co. (47%)                       Wisconsin

   C.   WPLH Acquisition Co. (100%)                                 Wisconsin
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION OF ACTING PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Timothy C. Lincoln, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Le@P Technology, Inc.

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this annual 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 annual
      report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-4 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
      have;

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual
            report is being prepared;

      b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
            and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
            of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures based on our
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
      committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
      equivalent functions):

      a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal controls; and

<PAGE>

6.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
      annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
      or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
      subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
      corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
      weaknesses.

Date: March 22, 2004


/s/ Timothy C. Lincoln
Timothy C. Lincoln
Acting Principal Executive Officer
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 53 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify eligibility for the 

child tax credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

eligibility for the child tax credit. 

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 ‘‘Child Tax Credit In5 tegrity Preservation Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 24 of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as fol9 lows: 

10 ‘‘(e) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 53 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No credit shall be allowed 

2 under this section to any taxpayer unless— 

3 ‘‘(A) such taxpayer includes the taxpayer’s 

4 valid identification number on the return of tax 

5 for the taxable year, and 

6 ‘‘(B) with respect to any qualifying child, 

7 the taxpayer includes the name and taxpayer 

8 identification number of such qualifying child 

9 on such return of tax. 

10 ‘‘(2) VALID IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.—For 

11 purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘valid identifica12 tion number’ means a social security number issued 

13 to an individual by the Social Security Administra14 tion. Such term shall not include a TIN issued by 

15 the Internal Revenue Service.’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

17 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

18 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT LEE WINFIELD, JR., a/k/a Tubbs,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (2:95-cr-00193-REP-1; 2:07-cv-00529-

REP)

Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7209 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 Our review of the record confirms 

that the district court properly construed Winfield’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 

§ 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling 

authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae, 793 F.3d 

at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th 

Cir. 2003), we construe Winfield’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to 

file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Winfield’s 

claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 

motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7209 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                     143,994
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              413,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,104
<INVENTORY>                                322,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           944,045
<PP&E>                                   1,398,262
<DEPRECIATION>                             586,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,772,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      694,465
<BONDS>                                    683,830
<COMMON>                                   282,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      7
<OTHER-SE>                                 721,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,772,444
<SALES>                                  1,985,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,000,181
<CGS>                                    1,651,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,651,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,615
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          43,689
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            160,804
<INCOME-TAX>                                60,458
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        100,346
<DISCONTINUED>                               4,099
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               104,445
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.84
        


<PAGE>
Order entered November 4 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 01042
- CV
SYED RAHMAN AND SABR INA RAHMAN, Appellant s V. CHARLENE N. FOSTER, Appellee On Appeal f

rom the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219
- 03078
- 2015



### O RDER
T he clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated October 25, 2016, we informed appellant s the clerk’s record had not been filed because appe llant s had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant s to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to provide written documentation they had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We c autioned appellant s that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. On November 1, 2016, appellants informed the Court that they had contacted the Collin County Clerk and were told they do not have “any due
payme nt also its (sic) not in their system.”Accordingly, we ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of

the date of this order, either (1) the clerk’s record; or (2) written documentation of notification to appellants of the amount due for the clerk’s record. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to:
Lynne Finley Collin County District Clerk All Parties

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM

 

 

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on FormN-1A of our report dated February 6, 2015, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights and to the investmentportfolio appearing in Item 6 of the Form N-CSR filing of American Funds Insurance Series, which appear in such Registration Statement.We also consent to the references to us under the headings "Financial highlights", "Independent registered publicaccounting firm" and "Prospectuses and reports to shareholders " in such Registration Statement.

 

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Los Angeles, California

April 29, 2015
Exhibit 23.2

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), provides that if any part of a registration statement at the time such part
becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any
person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may sue, among others, every
accountant who has consented to be named as having prepared or certified any part of the registration statement, or as having prepared or certified any report or valuation which is used in connection
with the registration statement, with respect to the statement in such registration statement, report or valuation which purports to have been prepared or certified by the accountant.

On
July 19, 2002, Inamed Corporation dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent auditor and appointed KPMG LLP to replace Arthur Andersen. Inamed's understanding is that the
staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission has taken the position that it will not accept consents from Arthur Andersen if the engagement partner and the manager for the Inamed Corporation audit
are no longer with Arthur Andersen. Both the engagement partner and the manager for the Inamed audit are no longer with Arthur Andersen. As a result, Inamed has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's
written consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements of its audit report with respect to Inamed's financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and for the
years then ended. Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits Inamed to file this Form 10-K without a written consent from Arthur Andersen. As a
result, however, Arthur Andersen will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited
by Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you would be unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the
Securities Act for any purchases of securities under the Registration Statements made on or after the date of this Form 10-K. To the extent provided in Section 11(b)(3)(C) of
the Securities Act, however, other persons who are liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act, including the Company's officers and directors, may still rely on Arthur Andersen's original
audit reports as being made by an expert for purposes of establishing a due diligence defense under Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.

---

QuickLinks
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APR 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 09 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 8 :0 9- cr-0 04 40 -J SM- TGW -2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
vers us DELROY HOL MES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es . PER CURI AM: Bren t Arm st ro ng , app oi nt ed co un se l fo r Del ro y Hol m es , has fil ed a m ot io n to wit hd raw o n a pp eal , su pp or te d b y a br ie f pr ep ared pu rs ua nt to And er s v.Ca li

fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d 49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de nt
rev ie w of t he en ti re re co rd rev eal s t ha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t of th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rd
rev eal s n o a rg ua bl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , an d Ho lm es ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es are AFFIRMED
.

2
**UNITED STATES**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

**FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended**December 31, 2005
 

 **                                                                           
Commission
Registrant; State of Incorporation
IRS Employer
File Number
Address; and Telephone Number
Identification No.      
001-01245**WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
39-0476280 
(A Wisconsin Corporation)  
231 West Michigan Street  
P.O. Box 2046  
Milwaukee, WI 53201  
(414) 221-2345  **                                                                        

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:    None  
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
     Serial Preferred Stock, 3.60% Series, $100 Par Value
     Six Per Cent.  Preferred Stock, $100 Par Value

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes [  ]    No [X]****************
EXHIBIT 10.15


WAIVER


In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a
result of my employer’s participation in the United States Department of the
Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim
against the United States or any state or territory thereof or my employer or
any of its directors, officers, employees and agents for any changes to my
compensation or benefits that are required in order to comply with Section
111(b) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended (“EESA”), and rules, regulations, guidance
or other requirements issued thereunder (collectively, the “EESA Restrictions”).


I acknowledge that the EESA Restrictions may require
modification of the employment, compensation, bonus, incentive, severance,
retention and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called “golden parachute” agreements), whether or not in writing,
that I have with my employer or in which I participate as they relate to the
period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer
acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program and I hereby consent to all
such modifications. I further acknowledge and agree that if my employer
notifies me in writing that I have received payments in violation of the EESA
Restrictions, I shall repay the aggregate amount of such payments to my
employer no later than fifteen business days following my receipt of such
notice.


This waiver includes all claims I may have under the
laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction related to the requirements
imposed by the EESA Restrictions (including without limitation, any claim for
any compensation or other payments or benefits I would otherwise receive absent
the EESA Restrictions, any challenge to the process by which the EESA
Restrictions were adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect
of the foregoing on my employment relationship) and I hereby agree that I will
not at any time initiate, or cause or permit to be initiated on my behalf, any
such claim against the United States, my employer or its directors, officers,
employees or agents in or before any local, state, federal or other agency,
court or body. 


In witness whereof, I execute this waiver on my own
behalf, thereby communicating my acceptance and acknowledgement to the
provisions herein.


Respectfully,


	
 

	
 


	
 

	



	
 

	
Name:


	
 

	
Title:


	
 

	
Date:
#### Thomas Mandelkow et al., as Trustees of Upstate Human Services Self-Insurance Trust Fund, Also Known as Human Services Self-Insurance Trust, Appellants, v Child and Family Services of Erie County, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[852 NYS2d 923]

Same memorandum as in *Mandelkow v Child & Family Servs. of Erie County*(49 AD3d 1316 [2008]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.