alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §80a–48. Penalties

Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subchapter or of any rule, regulation, or order hereunder, or any person who willfully in any registration statement, application, report, account, record, or other document filed or transmitted pursuant to this subchapter or the keeping of which is required pursuant to section 80a–30(a) of this title makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary in order to prevent the statements made therein from being materially misleading in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, shall upon conviction be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; but no person shall be convicted under this section for the violation of any rule, regulation, or order if he proves that he had no actual knowledge of such rule, regulation, or order.

(Aug. 22, 1940, ch. 686, title I, §49, 54 Stat. 846; Pub. L. 94–29, §27(e), June 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 163.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1975—Pub. L. 94–29 substituted "or imprisoned not more than five years" for "or imprisoned not more than two years".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–29 effective June 4, 1975, see section 31(a) of Pub. L. 94–29, set out as a note under section 78b of this title.
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0143 Focus Ready Draft 1/30/2012 ENGINEER: Hall \ BCS PV (kg/yr):
SUBMITTER: USE: Crosslinkable isocyanate resin for coatings on golf balls.
OTHER USES: None found.CRSS :

Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (01/18/2012): Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P3B1T1 PMN: P1B1T1; Hyd Pdt: P3B1T1 Health: 1-2 Inhalation Eco: 1 No releases to Water OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0-1 NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. This PMN is manufactured domestically, therefore, manufacturing is assesseed. Proc/Use of PMN as a crosslinking resin for golf ball coatings is assessed. // Note, SAT concern for inhalation only with releases to water not required and migration to gw = negl. // Dermal exposures are not assessed per SAT. // For MFG: This IRER assesses equipment cleaning residuals and stack air emissions to incineration (submission). Inhalation exposure is expected to be negl. (VP < 0.001 torr). // For PROC/USE: This IRER assesses all releases to uncertain media (non-submitter controlled site). Inhalation exposure is expected to be negl. for the intended use in the casting process (VP < 0.001 torr and no mist generation expected). //POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: None.
EXPOSURE -BASED REVIEW: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0143 MFG: Manufacture of PMN Number of Sites/ Location: 2 PPG Industries, Inc. Springdale PA 15144 PPG Industries, Inc. Oak Creek WI 53154 Days/yr: 21

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Note SAT concerns for inhalation with releases to water not required and migration to gw = negl.INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0143 PROC/USE: Number of Sites/ Location: 1 Acushnet Corporation (pg 15 of P2 Assessment Summary) New Bedford MA Days/yr: 250

Process Description:ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Note SAT concerns for inhalation with releases to water not required and migration to gw = negl.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes:
LEVY BISHOP,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3151

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2017. 

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Terry P. Lewis, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2013344EN.01001002.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

(Case C-431/11) (1)

1

(Coordination of social security systems - EEA Agreement - Proposal for an amendment - Council decision - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU)

2013/C 344/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, acting as Agent, assisted by A. Dashwood QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Veiga, A. De Elera and G. Marhic, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Travers, BL)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2011/407/EU of 6 June 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex VI (Social Security) and Protocol 37 to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2011 L 182, p. 12) — Choice of legal basis (Article 48 TFEU or Article 79 TFEU)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.

1

---
### §4146. Definitions

For purposes of this subchapter—

(1) the term "community-based nonprofit housing developer" means a nonprofit community development corporation that—

(A) has been classified by the Internal Revenue Service as an exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of title 26;

(B) has been in existence for at least 2 years prior to the date of the grant application;

(C) has a record of service to low- and moderate-income people in the community in which the project is located;

(D) is organized at the neighborhood, city, county or multi-county level; and

(E) in the case of a corporation acquiring eligible housing under subchapter I of this chapter, agrees to form a purchaser entity that conforms to the definition of a community-based nonprofit organization under such subchapter and agrees to use its best efforts to secure majority tenant consent to the acquisition of the project for which grant assistance is requested; and

(2) the terms "eligible low-income housing", "nonprofit organization", "owner", and "resident council" have the meanings given such terms in section 4119 of this title.

(Pub. L. 100–242, title II, §256, as added Pub. L. 102–550, title III, §312, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3769.)
#### § 385.505 Right of participants to present evidence (Rule 505).

Consistent with the provisions of this part, a participant has the right to present such evidence, including rebuttal evidence, to make such objections and arguments, and to conduct such cross-examination, as may be necessary to assure true and full disclosure of the facts.
# Helping Children Cope With Stress

**STRESS** can affect anyone—even a child—who feels overwhelmed. Stress comes from the demands placed on a person and his or her ability (or perceived ability) to meet them. Childhood stress may come from outside sources (family, friends, school, illness, death of loved ones, divorce, and disasters) and from within (pressures children place on themselves).

**What are the signs my child is feeling stress?**

· Mood swings

· Acting out

· Changes in sleep patterns

· Bedwetting

· Stomachaches 

· Headaches 

· Nightmares

· Separation anxiety

· Overreactions to problems

· Major changes in school performance

· Refusal to participate in activities

· Trouble concentrating

· Problems completing schoolwork

· Withdrawal

· Regression (common in younger children; may include thumb sucking, hair twirling)

· Lying, bullying, and defiance of authority (common in older children)

You may not be able to keep your child from feeling frustrated, sad, or angry, but you can help him or her cope with these emotions.

Seek help when problems appear to be serious or interfere with daily living. Talk to your child’s doctor or a counselor. 

If you would like to have an outreach worker come talk to you or your child, please call us at [Insert Program Phone Number Here].

[Insert Program Logo Here]

*Adapted from Louisiana Spirit Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program.*

**How can I help my child?**

· Make time for your child each day.

·  Give your child lots of hugs and kisses.

· Notice your child’s feelings out loud.

· Listen to your child—allow him or her to talk about things that may be causing stress.

· Help your child by discussing potentially stressful situations and helping him or her prepare for them.

· Just be there. Respect your child and tell him or her you’ll be there when he or she is ready to talk.

· Be patient. Resist the urge to fix every problem. Help your child grow into a good problem solver.

· Avoid talking about your troubles around your child. 

· Ensure that your child gets proper rest.

· Ensure that your child gets proper nutrition—balanced meals and regular eating times. 

· Ensure that your child gets enough exercise.

· Avoid overscheduling. Help your child manage his or her time and responsibilities.

· Ensure that your child has play time and quiet time.

· Monitor exposure to news about trauma.
111298720 v1 1/20/2016

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11063 A issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket

No. FAA

- 2014

- 0358

.

Dear Sir or Madam;

Snaproll Media was issued an E xemption numbered 11063A for the purpose of

conducting scripted, closed

- set filming for the motion picture, television industry and Aerial Data

Collection. Snapr oll Media herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an

addition al type of unmanned aircraft system FreeFly Alta that fully complies with the conditions

of the Exemption.

Snaproll Media wishes to operate a FreeFly Alta under the same terms a nd conditions

contained in the Exemption. Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential document, is the

Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS. All operations of the

additional UAS will be in full compliance with the te rms of the Ex e mption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another

type of unmanned aerial vehicle, SnapR oll Media respectfully submits that good cause exists so

that notice does not need to be published i n the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request

for an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely yours, Spencer Valdez

cc:

James Williams

Robert Pappas

Jake Troutman
zixi-ex1029_294.htm



 

Exhibit 10.29

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO ZIX CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of January 18, 2016, between Richard Spurr (the “Optionee”) and Zix Corporation, a Texas corporation (the “Company”).  Reference is made to that certain Zix Corporation Employee Stock Option Agreement, effective as of July 26, 2012, between the Optionee and the Company (the “Option Agreement”).

1. Amendments.  

a. Section 3.1 of the Option Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 

“3.1 Termination of Continuous Service or Departure of Director Other Than for “Cause”

This Option terminates on the later of (i) one year after Optionee’s Continuous Service terminates due to death, “Disability,” “Resignation,” “Retirement” or termination by the Company other than for “Cause” and (ii) one year after Optionee ceases to be a member of the Board.” 

b. Section 3.2 of the Option Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

“3.2 Termination of Continuous Service or Removal of Director for “Cause”

This Option (whether vested or unvested) terminates immediately and automatically (i) upon the Company or any Subsidiary terminating the Continuous Service of Optionee for “Cause” or (ii) if Optionee is removed from the Board for “Cause”.” 

2. Governing Law. This Amendment is governed by and will be construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Texas (excluding its conflict of law rules) and applicable federal law.

3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement, and any party hereto may execute this Amendment by signing and delivering one or more counterparts. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Amendment electronically or by facsimile shall be effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Amendment.

4. No Other Changes. Other than as provided in this Amendment, the Option Agreement is and shall remain in full force and effect.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the dates set forth below, to be effective as of the latest date set forth below.

 


	
ZIX CORPORATION

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Justin Ferguson

	
 
	
 
	
Justin Ferguson,

	
 
	
 
	
Vice President and General Counsel

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Date:
	
 
	
January 18, 2016




 


	
/s/ Richard Spurr

	
Richard Spurr

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Date:
	
 
	
1/18/2016
# C_2013156EN.01001002.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-636/11) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Consumer protection - Food safety - Public information - Placing on the market of food unfit for human consumption, but not constituting a health risk)

2013/C 156/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karl Berger

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht München I — Interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1) — Scope ratione temporis — Rules of national law under which the public may be informed in cases where a foodstuff which is unfit for consumption and nauseating in appearance, but which does not constitute a specific risk to health, is placed on the market

ratione temporis

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation allowing information to be issued to the public mentioning the name of a food and the name or trade name of the food manufacturer, processor or distributor, in a case where that food, though not injurious to health, is unfit for human consumption. The second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of that regulation must be interpreted as allowing, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, national authorities to issue such information to the public in accordance with the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

1

---
# C_2013046EN.01000501.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-279/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Incorrect transposition - Annexe II - Point 1(a) to (c) - Judgment of the Court of Justice - Finding of infringement - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Lump sum payment - Member State’s ability to pay - Economic crisis - Assessment on the basis of current economic data)

2013/C 46/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and D. O’Hagan, acting as Agents, and E. Regan, SC, and de C. Toland, BL)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 20 November 2008 in Case C-66/06 Commission v Ireland concerning the infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Application for the imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum.

Commission

Ireland

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 20 November 2008 in Case C-66/06 Commission v Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 20 November 2008 in Case C-66/06 Commission v Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU.

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 1 500 000. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 1 500 000.

| 3. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

1

---
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-Q of Overhill Farms,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended April 1, 2007 (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, 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, as amended; and

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

Dated: May 14, 2007                     By: /s/ James Rudis
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            James Rudis
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            (principal executive officer)


Dated: May 14, 2007                     By: /s/ John L. Steinbrun
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            John L. Steinbrun
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            (principal financial officer)

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. JAMES S. WHITE, Defendant THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY QUINATA MUNA, Defendant

Criminal No. 19F-74

Criminal No. 1F-75

Superior Court of Guam

January 30, 1975

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

An objection and statement was filed in the above-entitled criminal cases disqualifying me as the trial judge, pursuant to Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The *263reason stated is based on bias and prejudice. Attached to the statement is an indictment wherein my son Gregory Valer Abbate was the murder victim.

I wish to state that subsequent to the death of my son, I have tried criminal cases and on one occasion acted as trial judge in a murder *case*—People *v. Pador.*The record is clear that there was no demonstration of any bias or prejudice.

Counsel’s statement regarding probable bias and prejudice is untenable. As a trial judge for the last six (6) years I can state, without any mental reservation, that as to this defendant and as to the crime of murder in the first degree, or any criminal case, that no bias and prejudice exists. “Bias and prejudice does not refer to any views a judge may entertain towards the subject matter involved in a case.” 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judges § 168. Both of these terms —bias and prejudice — are a mental attitude towards a party in the action and *not*to any views that a judge may entertain regarding the subject matter. See *Crawford v. Ferguson,*115 Pac. 278.

In view of the foregoing, I do not feel disqualified to sit or act as trial judge in *People v. White*and *People v. Muna.*
§ 385.1503 Actions subjecting persons to civil penalties (Rule 1503). ( a ) The actions that subject persons to civil penalties are violations of: ( 1 ) Any rule or regulation issued under Part I of the Federal Power Act;
( 2 ) Any term or condition of a license or permit issued under Part I of the Federal Power Act or an exemption issued from any provision of Part I of the Federal Power Act;
( 3 ) Any compliance order issued under section 31(a) of the Federal Power Act; or
( 4 ) Any requirement of Part I of the Federal Power Act.
( b ) Only actions occurring on or after October 16, 1986, may subject a person to civil penalties.