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

                           DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN

     Each  director of the  Corporation  shall be  compensated  for service as a
director in the following manner:

     1. Directors  shall be compensated in options to purchase  shares of common
stock of the corporation and cash for each July 1 through June 30 period.

     2. Each director shall be granted on the first business day of July of each
year  options for 1,000  shares of common  stock.  Each member of the  executive
committee shall be granted at the same time additional  options for 1,000 shares
of common stock.

     3. The options  shall have a term of ten years and an exercise  price equal
to the  closing  price of the stock on the date of grant  or, if no shares  were
traded on the date of  grant,  the  closing  price on the most  recent  previous
trading day. The options shall be unexercisable  and subject to forfeiture until
the first anniversary of the grant date. The options shall be issued pursuant to
the  Carolina  National  Corporation  Long  Term  Incentive  Plan,  shall not be
assignable and shall be evidenced by a written stock option agreement.

     4. In  addition  to  options,  each  non-employee  member  of the  board of
directors  shall be paid $500 in cash for each  quarter  and each  member of the
executive  committee  shall be paid an additional $500 in cash for each quarter.
The  Chairman  of the Board  will  receive an annual  payment  of  $3,500.  Cash
compensation  shall be paid on the date of the first board meeting following the
end of the quarter.

     5. The  amount  so set  shall  be paid  for  board  service  consisting  of
attendance,  in  person or by  telephone,  at not less than 75% of the board and
committee meetings in such period.

     6. In the case of any  director  who  does  not  attend,  in  person  or by
telephone,  at least 75% of the board and committee  meetings,  such  director's
option compensation shall be forfeited. Forfeiture determinations for the period
shall  be  made  on the  first  business  day in  July  of the  following  year.
Unforfeited  options will vest and become exercisable 20% on each anniversary of
the grant date.

     7. This plan shall become  effective on July 1, 2007 and continue in effect
until modified or terminated by the Board of Directors.
exv10w1



 








EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT TO THE

HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES, INC.

STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




W I T N E S S E T H




     WHEREAS, Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) presently maintains the Hillenbrand
Industries, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, the Company, pursuant to Section 16.1 of the Plan, has the right to amend the Plan
from time to time, subject to certain limitations; and



     WHEREAS, in an effort to insure the best “accounting impact to the Company” as set forth in
Section 4.4 of the Plan, the Company desires to amend the Plan.



     NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following manner:



     1. Effective as of the date hereof, the first paragraph of Section 4.4 is hereby amended to
read as follows:




4.4 In the event of any merger, reorganization, consolidation, sale of substantially all
assets, recapitalization, stock dividend, stock split, spin-off, split-up, split-off,
distribution of assets or other change in corporate structure affecting the Common Stock
such that an adjustment is determined by the Board in its discretion to be appropriate,
after considering any accounting impact to the Company, in order to prevent dilution or
enlargement of benefits under the Plan, then the Board shall, in such a manner as it may in
its discretion deem equitable, adjust any or all of (i) the aggregate number and kind of shares reserved for issuance under the Plan, and (ii) the number and kind of shares as to
which awards may be granted to any individual in any fiscal year. In the event of any
merger, reorganization, consolidation, sale of substantially all assets, recapitalization,
stock dividend, stock split, spin-off, split-up, split-off, distribution of assets or other
change in corporate structure affecting the Common Stock subject to an outstanding award,
other than the separation of the Company’s health care and death care businesses into two
separately traded public companies, as contemplated and preliminarily approved by the
Corporation’s Board of Directors, regardless of the form of the transaction or series of
related transactions used to effect the bifurcation, the number and kind of shares of
Common Stock or other securities which are subject to this Plan or subject to any awards
theretofore granted, and the exercise prices, shall be appropriately and equitably adjusted
by the Board so as to maintain the proportionate number of shares or other securities
without changing the aggregate exercise price, if any.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company has adopted and approved this
Amendment to the Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan on the 12th day of July, 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Patrick de Maynadier
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Vice President
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

WILLIAM WOODS AND JANET GRAY-WOODS V GENESEE 

COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION 

Docket No. 334733 

LC No. 14-103684-CE 

Patrick M. Meter 

Presiding Judge 

David H. Sawyer 

Douglas B. Shapiro 

Judges 

The Court orders that the January 9, 2018 majority opinion is hereby AMENDED to 

correct a clerical error. On page 7, the signature block at the bottom of the page is amended to read: 

Patrick M. Meter and David H. Sawyer. 

true • p cnt ~d d1 rtificd b .I r me W. Zimm r Jr.. hi f I ·rk. n 

JAN 1 8 2018
##### 



EXHIBIT 21
 List of Subsidiaries
 Name
    
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation
    
    OwnershipStratos Lightwave LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Stratos Lightwave- Florida, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Advanced Interconnection Technology LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Rapidwerks LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Stratos Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    
    100
    %Paracer, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Tsunami Optics, Inc.
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Sterling Holding Company
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %
§ 435.3 Limited applicability. ( a ) This part shall not apply to: ( 1 ) Subscriptions, such as magazine sales, ordered for serial delivery, after the initial shipment is made in compliance with this part;
( 2 ) Orders of seeds and growing plants;
( 3 ) Orders made on a collect-on-delivery (C.O.D.) basis;
( 4 ) Transactions governed by the Federal Trade Commission`s Trade Regulation Rule entitled “Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans,” 16 CFR Part 425.
( b ) By taking action in this area: ( 1 ) The Federal Trade Commission does not intend to preempt action in the same area, which is not inconsistent with this part, by any State, municipal, or other local government. This part does not annul or diminish any rights or remedies provided to consumers by any State law, municipal ordinance, or other local regulation, insofar as those rights or remedies are equal to or greater than those provided by this part. In addition, this part does not supersede those provisions of any State law, municipal ordinance, or other local regulation which impose obligations or liabilities upon sellers, when sellers subject to this part are not in compliance therewith.
( 2 ) This part does supersede those provisions of any State law, municipal ordinance, or other local regulation which are inconsistent with this part to the extent that those provisions do not provide a buyer with rights which are equal to or greater than those rights granted a buyer by this part. This part also supersedes those provisions of any State law, municipal ordinance, or other local regulation requiring that a buyer be notified of a right which is the same as a right provided by this part but requiring that a buyer be given notice of this right in a language, form, or manner which is different in any way from that required by this part. In those instances where any State law, municipal ordinance, or other local regulation contains provisions, some but not all of which are partially or completely superseded by this part, the provisions or portions of those provisions which have not been superseded retain their full force and effect.
( c ) If any provision of this part, or its application to any person, partnership, corporation, act or practice is held invalid, the remainder of this part or the application of the provision to any other person, partnership, corporation, act or practice shall not be affected thereby.
#### § 1.94 Commission proceeding to assess civil penalty.

If the respondent fails to elect to have the procedures of § 1.95 apply, the Commission shall determine whether to issue a complaint and thereby commence an adjudicative proceeding in conformance with section 333(d)(2)(A) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6303(d)(2)(A). If the Commission votes to issue a complaint, the proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with subparts B, C, D, E and F of part 3 of this chapter, unless otherwise ordered in the notice of proposed penalty. In assessing a penalty, the Commission shall take into account the factors listed in § 1.97.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, individually

and as Trustee of Hancock and Company,

Inc. Profit Sharing Trust, under trust

instrument April 3, 1993,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, a Hawaii

Limited Liability Company; FIDELITY

NATIONAL TITLE AND ESCROW OF

HAWAII, INC., a Hawaii corporation;

DOES, 1-10,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-15233

D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00198-DKWRLP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 20, 2016 

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

FILED

NOV 07 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellant William Hancock appeals from the district court’s judgment

(1) granting Appellee Kulana Partners, LLC’s (Kulana) motion to dismiss,

(2) granting Appellee Fidelity National Title and Escrow of Hawaii, Inc.’s

(Fidelity) motion for judgment on the pleadings, and (3) denying Hancock’s

motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In the jurisdictional allegation of his complaint, Hancock alleges that Kulana

is “a citizen of the State of Hawaii.” As a limited liability company, Kulana is “a

citizen of every state of which its []members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia

Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, Hancock

was obligated to allege the citizenship of Kulana’s members, and his failure to do

so renders the allegation of diversity defective. NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, —

F.3d —, Nos. 13-56157, 14-57015, 13-56225, 2016 WL 6137483, at *2–3 (9th Cir.

Sept. 7, 2016). This court therefore cannot exercise jurisdiction on that basis.

Hancock’s alternative jurisdictional allegation, that this case is “related to” a

bankruptcy case, is also insufficient. Jurisdiction will lie pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1334(b) where the outcome of the action “could alter the debtor’s rights,

liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which

in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.”

Feitz v. Great W. Sav. (In re Feitz), 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988), quoting

2
Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984). Hancock’s threadbare

allegation that a debtor’s estate “may have an interest in the subject property” is

woefully inadequate to permit us to conclude that jurisdiction exists. Accordingly,

we must dismiss the appeal.

On remand, the district court should determine whether diversity exists

between the parties, whether this case is “related to” a bankruptcy proceeding

under section 1334(b), or whether there is any other basis for federal court

jurisdiction. This panel retains jurisdiction to hear any future appeals in this matter.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

3
#### § 1209.41 Effective date.

The requirements of this subpart B of part 1209 shall become effective on October 16, 1979. Any cellulose insulation manufactured after October 15, 1979 must be certified as complying with the standard. Cellulose insulation which is sold in bags or other containers is “manufactured” when the insulation is packaged in the bag or other container in which it will be sold. Insulation which is not sold in bags or containers is “manufactured” when the insulation leaves the manufacturing site to be sold.
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of issuance of policy statement.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the issuance of policy statement PS-ACE100-2004-10024 on the installation of electronic engine control for reciprocating engines. This policy statement sets forth guidance on appropriate certification requirements for installation of an Electronic Engine Control (EEC) into a small airplane with a reciprocating engine. It includes guidance related to methods of compliance as well as potential Equivalent Level of Safety findings (ELOS) and special conditions.

# DATES:

                        Policy statement PS-ACE100-2004-10024 was issued by the Acting Manager of the Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-100, on November 18, 2004.                              ( print page 70167)    

*How To Obtain Copies:*                         The policy statement will be available on the Internet at                         *http://www.airweb.faa.gov/​policy.*                         You may obtain a paper copy of PS-ACE100-2004-10024 either by writing to the Small Airplane Directorate, Standards Office, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; by calling the office at telephone 816-329-4135; or by faxing your request to Mr. Pete Rouse at 816-329-4090.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Pete Rouse, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Regulations & Policy, ACE-111, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4135; fax: 816-329-4090; e-mail:                         *peter.rouse@faa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

We announced the availability of the policy statement on July 23, 2004 (69 FR 44075). Several comments were received, and the policy has been revised where necessary to respond to those comments.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on November 18, 2004.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04-26523 Filed 12-1-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Exhibit 35.1

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE 

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of May 29, 2019 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2019-2 Owner Trust, as follows:

|   | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2020, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 29th day of May, 2020.

 

|   | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Paul C. Honda                                        |  |
|   | Vice President and Assistant Secretary               |  |
|   | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William MacLaren, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. On the hearing on revocation of probation, we find that the probationer was accorded all the privileges allowed him by section 935 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the protection of counsel. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Botein, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Davis, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 217]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered March 16, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and a statement he made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing was sufficient to establish that a police officer observed his failure to stop at a stop sign, and therefore acted lawfully in stopping his vehicle *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]; *Whren v United States,*517 US 806, 810 [1996]; *People v Robinson,*97 NY2d 341, 349 [2001]; *People v Gonzalez,*25 AD3d 620 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 833 [2006]; *People v Lamanda,*205 AD2d 934 [1994]; *People v Frank,*161 AD2d 794 [1990]). Upon ascertaining that the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see People v Mitchell,*303 AD2d 422 [2003]; *People v Tavarez,*277 AD2d 260 [2000]). Thus, suppression of the cocaine recovered from the defendant’s person was not warranted, as it was recovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest *(see Chimel v California,*395 US 752, 762-763 [1969]; *People v Perel,*34 NY2d 462, 466-467 [1974]; *People v Tavarez, supra).*

Moreover, the defendant was not entitled to suppression of a statement he made to police officers following his arrest. Although the officers were discussing the drugs found on the *446defendant’s person within earshot of the defendant, the defendant’s inquiry as to “how much trouble he was in” was spontaneous (see *People v Bryant,*87 AD2d 873 [1982], *affd*59 NY2d 786 [1983]). After one of the officers succinctly and accurately answered the defendant’s question, the defendant volunteered an inculpatory statement (see *People v Brown,*161 AD2d 778 [1990]). The Supreme Court properly determined that the inculpatory statement was not prompted by the functional equivalent of custodial interrogation, and thus was not subject to suppression (see *Rhode Island v Innis,*446 US 291, 300-301 [1980]; *Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]). Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

FULL WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Approval

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to close the following meeting:

Thursday, May 19, 2016

1:30 PM Briefing on Security Issues (Closed – Ex. 1)

The Commission voted 4 to 0 on March 31, 2016, to close this discussion which is reasonably 

expected to involve classified information.

Attendance

- Commissioners and members of their staffs

- Representative of the Commission Staff Offices

- Representatives of the Executive Director for Operations

- Representatives from other Federal Agencies

Contact Person for More Information

Denise McGovern, Office of the Secretary (301-415-0681)

 

 /RA/

Denise McGovern

Office of the Secretary

April 18, 2016
### §1395b–10. Addressing health care disparities

#### (a) Evaluating data collection approaches

The Secretary shall evaluate approaches for the collection of data under this subchapter, to be performed in conjunction with existing quality reporting requirements and programs under this subchapter, that allow for the ongoing, accurate, and timely collection and evaluation of data on disparities in health care services and performance on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender. In conducting such evaluation, the Secretary shall consider the following objectives:

(1) Protecting patient privacy.

(2) Minimizing the administrative burdens of data collection and reporting on providers and health plans participating under this subchapter.

(3) Improving Medicare program data on race, ethnicity, and gender.

#### (b) Reports to Congress

#### (1) Report on evaluation

Not later than 18 months after July 15, 2008, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the evaluation conducted under subsection (a). Such report shall, taking into consideration the results of such evaluation—

(A) identify approaches (including defining methodologies) for identifying and collecting and evaluating data on health care disparities on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender for the original Medicare fee-for-service program under parts A and B, the Medicare Advantage program under part C, and the Medicare prescription drug program under part D; and

(B) include recommendations on the most effective strategies and approaches to reporting HEDIS quality measures as required under section 1395w–22(e)(3) of this title and other nationally recognized quality performance measures, as appropriate, on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender.

#### (2) Reports on data analyses

Not later than 4 years after July 15, 2008, and 4 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that includes recommendations for improving the identification of health care disparities for Medicare beneficiaries based on analyses of the data collected under subsection (c).

#### (c) Implementing effective approaches

Not later than 24 months after July 15, 2008, the Secretary shall implement the approaches identified in the report submitted under subsection (b)(1) for the ongoing, accurate, and timely collection and evaluation of data on health care disparities on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, §1809, as added Pub. L. 110–275, title I, §185, July 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 2587.)