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

CENTERPOINT ENERGY SAVINGS RESTORATION PLAN
 (Effective as of January 1, 2008)


Partial Termination Amendment
WHEREAS, CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a Texas corporation (the “Company”), maintains the CenterPoint Energy Savings Restoration Plan, effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend or terminate the Plan at any time;
WHEREAS, certain Participants of the Plan (the “Enable Participants”) experienced a change in control event (as defined in Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-3(i)(5)) on December 2, 2021 in connection with the acquisition of Enable Midstream Partners, LP (“Enable”) by Energy Transfer LP (the “Enable CIC Event”);
WHEREAS, the Company desires to irrevocably terminate and liquidate the Plan with respect to each Enable Participant in accordance with Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-3(j)(4)(ix)(B); and 
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2022 (the “Approval Date”), the Board approved such termination and liquidation of the Plan, and this amendment to the Plan, and also approved, with respect to each Enable Participant, the termination and liquidation of all agreements, methods, programs and other arrangements sponsored by the Company or an affiliate immediately after the Enable CIC Event which deferrals of compensation are, together with deferrals under the Plan, treated as deferred under a single plan under Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(c)(2) so that all Enable Participants are required to receive all amounts of compensation deferred under such terminated agreements, methods, programs, and other arrangements within 12 months of the Approval Date; 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company does hereby amend the Plan as follows, effective as of March 1, 2022 (the “Termination Date”):
1.The Plan is hereby irrevocably terminated with respect to each Enable Participant.
1








2.As soon as administratively practicable after the Termination Date, and in no event later than 12 months following the Approval Date, the benefit under Plan for each Enable Participant shall be irrevocably liquidated and paid to the Enable Participant in a single lump sum cash payment. 
3.It is intended that the termination of the Plan with respect to the Enable Participants as set forth herein shall comply with the requirements of Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-3(j)(4)(ix)(B), and this amendment shall be interpreted and administered consistent therewith.
4.Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CenterPoint Energy, Inc. has executed these presents as evidenced by the signature of its officer affixed hereto, this 24th day of February, 2022, but effective as set forth above.
						
		CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC.
By:/s/David J. Lesar    
David J. Lesar
President and Chief Executive Officer



ATTEST:
/s/Vincent A. Mercaldi    
Vincent A. Mercaldi
Assistant Corporate Secretary
2
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Score One, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, Hoi-ho Kiu, Chief Executive Officer of
      the Company, and Lai Ming Lau, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/
                Hoi-hu Kiu
              Hoi-ho
                Kiu
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              May
                8, 2007






/s/
                Lai Ming Lau
              Lai
                Ming Lau
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              May
                8, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                     
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald J. Domanico                                              
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  |     |  | Ronald J. Domanico Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer



4
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose FRIAS-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 12-50685, 12-50689

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 29, 2013.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*416M. Carolyn Fuentes, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Frias-Rodriguez (Frias) pleaded guilty to being found unlawfully in the United States and was sentenced to a guideline range term of imprisonment of 21 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The district court also revoked Frias’s term of supervised release on a prior conviction and imposed a sentence at the top of the advisory range of 18 months, to run consecutively to the illegal reentry sentence. Fri-as is appealing from the imposition of the consecutive revocation sentence, arguing that it was not reasonable because the stacked sentence was greater than necessary to meet the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Frias contends that review of his revocation sentence should be for reasonableness. Because Frias failed to object to the reasonableness of his revocation sentence, we need not reach any dispute over standards of review because this court’s review is for plain error. *See United States v. Whitelaw,*580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.2009); *Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). Frias argues that the imposition of the consecutive sentence was plainly unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).

The imposition of the consecutive revocation sentence is authorized by statute and preferred under the Guidelines. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3584; U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s., & comment, (n. 4). The district court’s comments at sentencing reflect that it had considered the permissible § 3553(a) factors in determining that the consecutive 18-month revocation sentence, which was within the advisory range, was an appropriate and reasonable sentence. Frias has failed to show that the district court, in determining that the revocation sentence should run consecutively to the sentence for the new offense, committed any error, plain or otherwise. *See Puckett,*556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

Frias has not challenged his illegal reentry conviction or the sentence imposed for that offense. Thus, he has abandoned any claims arising out of that conviction or sentence. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993)

The convictions and sentences in both of the appeals are AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors.  Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).  If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843).  Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.  Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 14, 2002.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1.  River Valley Bancorp, Inc.*, Eldridge, Iowa; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of State Bank of Seaton, Seaton, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 14, 2001.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 01-31436  Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### William M. GRAY, District Director, etc., Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Harry W. EMBRY et al., Appellees. William M. GRAY, District Director, etc., Appellant, v. William C. EMBRY and Lois King Embry, Appellees.

Nos. 13142 and 13143.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

March 7, 1957.

Charles K. Rice, Lee A. Jackson, Washington, D. C.

J. Leonard Walker, Louisville, Ky., for appellant.

E. J. Wells, Louisville, Ky., for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of the appellant, William M. Gray, District Director of Internal Revenue, by counsel, and the Court being advised that counsel for appellees has no objection thereto,

It is hereby ordered and decreed that the appeals heretofore filed, 143 F.Supp. 603; 145 F.Supp. 383, by the appellant be and they are dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 8, 2006



/s/ Ronald J. DomanicoRonald J. Domanico, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> Art. 5 FDS for 2nd Quarter 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000825410
<NAME> LANDAUER, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>	<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>	6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>	SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>	OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>	MAR-31-1998
<CASH>	7,762
<SECURITIES>	2,969
<RECEIVABLES>	9,678
<ALLOWANCES>	245
<INVENTORY>	1,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>	22,911
<PP&E>	21,589
<DEPRECIATION>	12,579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>	45,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>	17,562
<BONDS>	0
<COMMON>	861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>	0
<PREFERRED>	0
<OTHER-SE>	26,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	45,171
<SALES>	21,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>	21,293
<CGS>	6,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>	6,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>	0
<LOSS-PROVISION>	0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>	0
<INCOME-PRETAX>	9,973
<INCOME-TAX>	3,640
<INCOME-CONTINUING>	6,333
<DISCONTINUED>	0
<EXTRAORDINARY>	0
<CHANGES>	0
<NET-INCOME>	6,333
<EPS-PRIMARY>	.74
<EPS-DILUTED>	.74
        


</TABLE>
73 A.3d 521

#### Tyrone JOHNSTON, Petitioner v. Honorable Teresa M. SARMINA, Judge, Philadelphia County, Respondent.

No. 75 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 31, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED. To the extent *14that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus requests an order of this court directing the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County to dispose of Petitioner’s pending Post Conviction Relief Act petition, it is GRANTED. In all other respects, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The lower court is directed to dispose of Petitioner’s pending petition within 90 days of this order. Finally, the Prothonotary is directed to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31636]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meeting

Board Votes To Close December 13, 2001, Meeting

    By paper and telephone vote on December 11-13, 2001 the Board of 
Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to 
close to public observation its meeting held in Washington, DC via 
teleconference. The Board determined that prior public notice was not 
possible.
    ITEM CONSIDERED: Rate Case R2001-1.
    GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION; The General Counsel of the United 
States Postal Service has certified that the meeting was properly 
closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Request for information about the 
meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, David G. 
Hunter, at (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31636 Filed 12-19-01; 2:05 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER02-73-000]

Take notice that on December 12, 2001, Llano Estacado Wind, LP (Llano Estacado Wind) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, and part 35 of the Commission's regulations, a supplemental filing in response to the Commission's December 10, 2001 Letter Order in the above-captioned proceeding. The supplement clarifies the ownership structures of Llano Estacado Wind and certain other entities.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “RIMS” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-filing” link.                

*Comment Date:*                     December 26, 2001.                

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-31591 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Rudolph SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 10-7170.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 9, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 21, 2010.

*733Rudolph Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rudolph Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith 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.*
<PAGE>
 

                                                                      Exhibit 11


                  PLATINUM technology, Inc. and subsidiaries

                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                  (unaudited)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                  Three Months Ended       Nine Months Ended
                                                     September 30,            September 30,
                                                ---------------------    --------------------
                                                   1997      1996           1997       1996
                                                ---------------------    --------------------
<S>                                             <C>         <C>         <C>         <C> 
Net income (loss)                               $ 10,160    $  (7,485)  $(94,042)    $(37,262)
                                                =====================   =====================
Average number of common shares outstanding       62,103       57,070     61,511       56,680

Average number of common stock eqivalents
  outstanding:
     Primary                                       2,707          -          -            -
     Fully-diluted                                 3,225          -          -            -

Average number of common shares and               
  equivalents outstanding:                        
     Primary                                      64,810       57,070     61,511       56,680
                                                =====================   =====================
     Fully-diluted                                65,328       57,070     61,511       56,680
                                                =====================   =====================
Net income (loss) per share:
     Primary                                      $ 0.16    $   (0.13)  $  (1.53)    $  (0.66)
                                                =====================   =====================
     Fully-diluted                                $ 0.16    $   (0.13)  $  (1.53)    $  (0.66)
                                                =====================   =====================
</TABLE>