alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.19

             AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT

     Pursuant to the MetLife, Inc. 2005 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan
(the "Plan"), MetLife, Inc. hereby amends your Management Restricted Stock Unit
Agreement (the "Agreement") as of December 31, 2005, as follows (this
"Amendment"):

     1. Section 2(b) of the Agreement is restated in its entirety as follows:

               "(b) Death. In the event that your employment with the Company or
          an Affiliate terminates due to your death, your Units will be
          due and payable in the form of Shares (or cash at a value equal to
          the Closing Price on the date of your death, if so determined by the
          Committee)."

     2. Any capitalized word used in this Amendment is defined in the Plan or
the Agreement. This Amendment will be construed in accordance with and governed
by the laws of the State of Delaware, regardless of the law that might be
applied under principles of conflict of laws. This Amendment, the Agreement, and
the Plan represent the entire agreement between you and the Company, and you and
all Affiliates, regarding your Units and no other promises, terms, or agreements
of any kind regarding your Units apply. In the event any provision of this
Amendment is held illegal or invalid, the rest of this Amendment will remain
enforceable.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused its duly authorized officer to
execute this Amendment.


METLIFE, INC.


By:  Robert H. Benmosche
     ---------------------------------------
     Name

     Chairman of the Board and CEO
     ---------------------------------------
     Title


     /s/ Robert H. Benmosche
     ---------------------------------------
     Signature


     This document constitutes part of a prospectus covering securities that
             have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
thirdamendgasdirectdefcomp.htm


Nicor Gas Company


Form 10-K


Exhibit 10.09


 


 






THIRD AMENDMENT


TO


NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY


DIRECTORS’ DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN







WHEREAS, Northern Illinois Gas Company (the “Company”) previously established the Northern Illinois Gas Company Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 as heretofore amended from time to time (the “Plan”); and


 


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


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


I.  Subsection 3.4 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and the following new Subsection 3.4 is substituted in lieu thereof:


 



	
  

	
“3.4

	
As an alternative to an interest equivalent, a Director may elect to have all or any portion of his or her compensation converted into share units, each reflecting a share of NICOR Inc. (“NICOR”) common stock. If this alternative is elected, the Director’s deferred account will be credited with an amount per share unit equal to the per share dividends and distributions paid on the NICOR common stock during the period the share unit is in the deferred account, which amount shall in turn be converted into share units.  The Director’s right to the dividend equivalent shall accrue on the date the dividend is declared.    However, the number of share units credited to a Director’s account for both the deferred compensation and the dividend equivalents shall be determined on the basis of the closing market composite price for the NICOR common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transactions on the last trading day preceding the deferred compensation or dividend payment date. For Separations from Service, the share units in the Director’s account shall be converted to a cash equivalent based on the arithmetic average of the closing market composite prices for the NICOR common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on 









  





- 1 -  











  







	
  

	
 

	
(i) the first trading day after the date the Director incurs a Separation from Service and (ii) each of the nineteen immediately preceding trading days.”







 


II.            This Third Amendment to the Plan shall be effective on the date approved by the Board of Directors of the Company.


 


III.           In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


 


 


 


 


- 2 -
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20786]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-92-000]


East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 20, 2017, East Texas Electric 
Cooperative, Inc. filed an application for cost-based revenue 
requirements schedule for reactive power production capability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the 
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a 
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e3a5a6b1a0ac8d8f8a8d86b09693938c9197a385869180cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c3a392e3f3312101512192f090c0c130e083c1a190e1f521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 11, 2017.

    Dated: September 21, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20786 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 28, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-31166

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARY DAVID LINDSEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-50085-4

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary David Lindsey appeals his conditional guilty-plea

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50

grams or more of d-methamphetamine. He argues that the district

court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the district court,

after hearing testimony, accepted the law enforcement agent’s

version of events over that of Lindsey and his wife, finding that

no coercion took place and that Lindsey’s confession was voluntary.
No. 02-31166

-2-

We will not disturb the district court’s findings absent clear

error. See United States v. Restrepo, 994 F.2d 173, 183 (5th Cir.

1993). If a finding is based on oral testimony at a suppression

hearing, the “clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong

since the judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the

witnesses.” See United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 438 (5th

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in

determining that the confession was voluntarily given. See id.

AFFIRMED.
PVG GP, LLC Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet for 2011



 Exhibit 10.19 
 PVG GP, LLC 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary Sheet for 2011 

Directors who are employees of PVG GP, LLC or its affiliates receive no additional compensation for service on the general partner’s
board of directors or any committees of the board. The table below summarizes the 2011 compensation program for the non-employee directors of PVG GP, LLC. 
 2011 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary 
  

							
	Component	  	 Amount

($)
	  	 Medium of
Payment (1)
	  	 Timing of Payment (2)

	 Annual Retainer
	  	90,000 per year	  	Deferred Common
Units	  	  $22,500 credited quarterly
		  	20,000 per year	  	Cash	  	  $5,000 paid quarterly
	 Audit Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	  	15,000 per year	  	Cash	  	  $3,750 paid quarterly
	 Audit Committee Member Annual Retainer
	  	10,000 per year	  	Cash	  	  $2,500 paid quarterly
	 Compensation and Benefits and Conflicts Chair Annual
Retainer
	  	2,500 per year	  	Cash	  	  $ 625 paid quarterly
	 Board Meeting Fee
	  	1,000 per meeting	  	Cash	  	Paid quarterly
	 Committee Meeting Fee
	  	1,000 per meeting	  	Cash	  	Paid quarterly

  

	(1)	Each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $110,000, consisting of $20,000 in cash and $90,000 worth of deferred common units, which are credited to each
director’s Deferred Compensation Account. In addition, directors may elect to receive any cash payments in common units or deferred common units, and may elect to defer the receipt of cash or common units they receive under the PVG GP, LLC
Amended and Restated Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan. 


	(2)	The fair market value of each quarterly crediting of deferred common units is based upon the NYSE closing price of our common units on the dates that such awards are
granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Amy C. SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-4100.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 19, 2008.

Decided: June 24, 2008.

Debra Y. Chapman, Debra Chapman, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Amy C. Smith pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343, 1349 (West 2000 *&*Supp.2008). She was sentenced to a term of thirty months imprisonment and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $378,113.42. Smith’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging *271the adjustment for abuse of a position of trust, *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 3B1.3 (2007), but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Smith has been informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief.

This court reviews de novo the district court’s determination that the defendant held a position of trust under § 3B1.3, and reviews the factual findings that support the adjustment for clear error. *United States v. Ebersole,*411 F.3d 517, 535-36 (4th Cir.2005); *United States v. Caplinger,*339 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir.2003). The adjustment applies if the position of public or private trust significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. USSG § 3B1.3, comment, (n.l.) Smith committed the offense while she was employed as a paralegal at a law firm, with access to the firm’s escrow and trust account and the ability to write checks and make wire transfers. Using two checks and a wire transfer, Smith transferred more than $690,000 out of the firm’s escrow account for the benefit of her co-defendant and herself. We conclude that the district court did not err in deciding that Smith occupied a position of trust, which facilitated her commission of the offense.

Pursuant to *Anders,*we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that such 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Registrant's
Consolidated  Condensed  Statement of Income and Consolidated  Condensed Balance
Sheet for the  twelve-month  period  ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     $US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 Jun-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                            49,700
<SECURITIES>                                       5,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                    400,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     146,000
<INVENTORY>                                      120,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 772,500
<PP&E>                                           152,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                   267,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,758,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,254,400
<BONDS>                                           89,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                       28,800
<COMMON>                                           1,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,405,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,758,800
<SALES>                                        2,553,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,553,700
<CGS>                                          2,299,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,299,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 214,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 5,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  263,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                      90,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              173,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     173,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                         1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.61



</TABLE>
exhibit1012.htm


Exhibit 10.12


 






 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into the 7th day of February, 2011, between 40|86 Advisors, Inc. (the “Company”) and Eric R. Johnson (“Executive”).







Recitals







A. The Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of December 21, 2009 (the “Agreement”).







B. The Company and Executive desire to further amend the Agreement to extend its Term (as defined in the Agreement) and to make the other changes set forth herein.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged:








	
1.  

	
Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended solely to change the ending date of the Term from September 30, 2010 to September 30, 2012.  All other provisions of Section 2 of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.













	
2.  

	
Section 5(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended solely to change “2010 bonus” in the penultimate sentence to “2012 bonus.”  All other provisions of Section 5(b) of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.













	
3.  

	
The reference to “Chief Executive Officer” in Section 15 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read “General Counsel.”













	
4.  

	
All references in the Agreement to “Conseco, Inc.” are hereby amended to read “CNO Financial Group, Inc.” and all references in the Agreement to “Conseco” are hereby amended to read “CNO”.













	
5.  

	
All provisions of the Agreement not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.











	  	
40|86 ADVISORS, INC.


	  	  
	  	
/s/ Karl W. Kindig


	  	
Karl W. Kindig, Assistant Secretary


	  	
 


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
/s/ Eric R. Johnson


	  	
Eric R. Johnson
CIRCUIT COURT OF SHENANDOAH COUNTY

#### Showman v. Mumaw

May 2, 1983

Case No. (Law) 1011

By JUDGE HENRY H. WHITING

The Court has carefully considered the memoranda filed by both counsel. None of the cases cited touch this question. *National Airlines*v. *Shea,*223 Va. 578 (1982), was a case in which both the ten-day period for appeal and the thirty-day period for filing a motion for a new trial expired. The case is grounded on a fraudulent misleading of the court which transcended the appellate necessities of both periods and required that the judgment on the merits be set aside, the case remanded to the Circuit Court for directions to remand it to the General District Court for trial on the merits. It does not reach the question of whether the entire case should have been tried on the merits if the fraud had touched only the second aspect dealing with the motion for a new trial. In that case there was no motion for a new trial and the fraud applied to the original judgment.

Doubtless many cases can be found in which it is said that the trial on appeal to the Circuit Court is one *de novo.*However, none of the cases cited by the appellant deal with this question. As a matter of fact, some of the cases cited, particularly the *Whitehurst*case, deal with setoff and the power of a trial justice or general district judge to entertain a setoff and doesn’t touch the scope of the appellate review.

The Court is convinced that if the ten-day period in which to note an appeal is to have any meaning it *44must require that the appeal from a motion for a new trial must deal solely with that issue, and if the court should decide that the General District Court should have granted the motion to set aside the verdict based on after-discovered evidence or some other similar ground traditionally assigned to such motions then the case would be remanded for a new trial in the General District Court. However, the Court does not have to decide that in this case. All it need decide is whether the appellant can open up the entire case by filing a motion for a new trial even though the motions were groundless. The Court does not believe it can do this but must require the appellant to establish error on the part of the General District Court in failing to grant the new trial. If that is done in this case, then the Court will decide the question of whether to remand the case for a new trial in the General District Court or try it in this Court.

This Court has already heard argument on a similar question, and its opinion in the case of *Lake Holiday Country Club, Inc.*v. Morton  is enclosed as a part of this opinion.

Counsel for the defendant shall draw the appropriate Order noting the appellant’s objections.
**Exhibit 99.1**

** **

Certification ofChief Executive Officer ofGold Banc Corporation, Inc.

 

I, Malcolm M.Aslin, Chief Executive Officer of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc., hereby certify,in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that:

 

(a)                                  TheAmendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2002, which accompanies this certification,fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)                                 Theinformation contained in the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, which accompanies thiscertification, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gold BancCorporation, Inc. and will be retained by Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated:  July 25, 2003 |
|----------------------------|
|                       |
|                       | /s/ Malcolm  M. Aslin |   |
|                       | Malcolm M.  Aslin |
|                       | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----