alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1







Exhibit 10.1




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

PENSKE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP 401(k) SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN

(As amended and restated effective January 1, 2009)




WHEREAS, Penske Automotive Group, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted and maintains the Penske Automotive Group
401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan, originally effective September 1, 1998, and as thereafter amended and restated
effective January 1, 2009 (the “Plan”); and



WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14 of the Plan, the Company has reserved the right to amend the Plan at any time; and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to place a cap on the percentage of new Participant contributions
and new Company contributions to the Plan that a participant may invest in the Plan’s Penske Automotive Common Stock
Fund investment option.



NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES, the Plan is amended effective January 1, 2011, in the following
respects:



1. Section 4.4 (Directed Investments) of the Plan is amended by the addition of the following language at the end
thereof, reading as follows:



“Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section 4.4, a Member’s investment of additional
Pre-Tax Contributions, Employer Matching Contributions, Rollover Contributions and Top Heavy
Contributions shall be capped at the level specified in Section 4.8.C.”



2. Section 4.8 (Special Rules Applicable to Investment in Penske Automotive Common Stock Fund) of the Plan is
amended by the addition of a new paragraph C at the end thereof, reading as follows:




	 	“C.	 	A Member may direct the investment of no more than 10% of his
additional Pre-Tax Contributions, Employer Matching Contributions, Rollover
Contributions and Top Heavy Contributions into the Penske Automotive Common Stock
Fund.”
	 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to the Penske Automotive Group 401(k) Savings and
Retirement Plan to be executed by its duly authorized representative this 20th day of September, 2010.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Penske Automotive Group, Inc.
	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Calvin C. Sharp
	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	Its:	 	Executive Vice President – H.R.
§ 1006.430 Corrective and remedial action. ( a ) *General.* One or more corrective or remedial actions will be taken by HUD when, on the basis of a performance review, HUD determines that the DHHL has not: ( 1 ) Complied with the requirements of the Act and this part and other applicable laws and regulations, including the environmental responsibilities assumed under § 1006.350;
( 2 ) Carried out its activities substantially as described in its housing plan;
( 3 ) Made substantial progress in carrying out its program and achieving its quantifiable goals as described in its housing plan; or
( 4 ) Shown the continuing capacity to carry out its approved activities in a timely manner.
( b ) *Action.* The action taken by HUD will be designed, first, to prevent the continuance of the deficiency; second, to mitigate any adverse effects or consequences of the deficiency; and third, to prevent a recurrence of the same or similar deficiencies. The following actions may be taken singly or in combination, as appropriate for the circumstances: ( 1 ) Issue a letter of warning advising the DHHL of the performance problem(s), describing the corrective actions that HUD believes should be taken, establishing a completion date for corrective actions, and notifying the DHHL that more serious actions may be taken if the performance problem(s) is not corrected or is repeated;
( 2 ) Request the DHHL to submit progress schedules for completing activities or complying with the requirements of the Act and this part;
( 3 ) Recommend that the DHHL suspend, discontinue, or not incur costs for the affected activity;
( 4 ) Recommend that the DHHL redirect funds from affected activities to other eligible activities;
( 5 ) Recommend that the DHHL reimburse its program account or line of credit under the Act in the amount improperly expended and reprogram the use of the funds; and
( 6 ) Recommend that the DHHL obtain appropriate technical assistance using existing grant funds or other available resources to overcome the performance problem(s).
Medicine Bow

Rawlins

Medicine
Bow

73 78 17

National
Forest

National Forest
| |

——-, 12

io
lon

10 20 30 40 50

Public lands that may have Sl
= potential for disposal or transfer Kilometers Map 2-26
ne Potential Disposals -
Miles

Carbon County
Alternatives 2 & 4

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2686 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2686

     To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize 
    appropriations for grants for coastal recreation water quality 
                 monitoring and notification programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mr. LoBiondo (for himself, Mrs. Davis of California, and Mr. Saxton) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize 
    appropriations for grants for coastal recreation water quality 
                 monitoring and notification programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COASTAL RECREATION WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND 
              NOTIFICATION.

    Section 406(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1346(i)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
the following: ``and $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 
2010''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 8 of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal 
Health Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 877) is amended by striking ``2005'' and 
inserting ``2010''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, William
M. McKay, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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
registrant.




November
      13, 2008
            By:
            /s/ William M. McKayWilliam
      M. McKayChief
      Financial Officer
### §7381h. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–358, title IX, §901(a), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 4044

Section, Pub. L. 101–510, div. C, title XXXI, §3171, as added Pub. L. 110–69, title V, §5003(d)(3), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 603, related to pilot program of grants to specialty schools for science and mathematics.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40738 Conference Calendar

__________________ L.W. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JOHN M. STENNER; HOOPER D. JOHNSON Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-10
- - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). He maintains that his allegations support a claim that the defendants delayed treatment of an eye injury, and that this delay constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition resulting in permanent blindness in his left eye. He also argues that John Stenner, the UnitNo. 95-40738 -2- Health Administrator at the Retrieve Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), controlled the way that Dr. Hooper D. Johnson, a physician at the TDCJ Unit Health Authority, practiced medicine. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court. Martin v. Stenner , No. G-95-CV-10 (S.D. Tex. August 28, 1995). AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2674 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2674

To waive time limitations specified by law in order to allow the Medal 
    of Honor to be awarded posthumously to Richard L. Etchberger of 
 Hamburg, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor on March 11, 1968, while an 
 Air Force Chief Master Sergeant serving in Southeast Asia during the 
                              Vietnam era.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

Mr. Holden (for himself and Mr. Pomeroy) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To waive time limitations specified by law in order to allow the Medal 
    of Honor to be awarded posthumously to Richard L. Etchberger of 
 Hamburg, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor on March 11, 1968, while an 
 Air Force Chief Master Sergeant serving in Southeast Asia during the 
                              Vietnam era.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL OF HONOR TO RICHARD L. 
              ETCHBERGER, FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING VIETNAM ERA.

    (a) Waiver of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time 
limitations specified in section 8744(b) of title 10, United States 
Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the awarding of 
certain medals to persons who served in the Air Force, the President 
may award the Medal of Honor posthumously under section 8741 of that 
title to Richard L. Etchberger, of Hamburg, Pennsylvania, for the acts 
of valor described in subsection (b).
    (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in subsection 
(a) are the actions of Air Force Chief Master Sergeant Richard L. 
Etchberger, on March 11, 1968, while on a secret mission manning a 
radar station in Laos in fighting off attackers armed with M-16s and 
then, while under enemy fire, loading three wounded colleagues into a 
helicopter hoist, in action then resulting in his own death from 
hostile fire when finally himself being hoisted by helicopter.
                                 <all>
```
### §7671q. Miscellaneous provisions

For purposes of section 7416 of this title, requirements concerning the areas addressed by this subchapter for the protection of the stratosphere against ozone layer depletion shall be treated as requirements for the control and abatement of air pollution. For purposes of section 7418 of this title, the requirements of this subchapter and corresponding State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process, and sanctions respecting the protection of the stratospheric ozone layer shall be treated as requirements for the control and abatement of air pollution within the meaning of section 7418 of this title.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title VI, §618, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title VI, §602(a), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2670.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Joe Johnson,

a/k/a Joseph Johnson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-96-180-A, CA-98-1066-A)

Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Gerard Connolly,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

August 6, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on August 10, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s order.

2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR-96-180-

A; CA-98-1066-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 10, 1999).* We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
### §419. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–778, title I, §103(j)(1), Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 937

Section, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title II, §219, as added Aug. 28, 1950, ch. 809, title I, §107, 64 Stat. 517, prescribed the effective date of this subchapter in Puerto Rico as January 1 of the first calendar year which begins more than 90 days after the date on which the President received a certification from the Governor of Puerto Rico.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Sept. 13, 1960, see section 103(v)(1), (3) of Pub. L. 86–778, set out as an Effective Date of 1960 Amendment note under section 402 of this title.
Flight Log

Pre-flight Inspection □ Yes ☐ No Comment

Date

Location

(circle) (circle) Comment

Weather Good Fair

Visibility Good Fair

Wind Speed Low Medium

Proximity to airport: Airport Notified? □ Yes ☐ No

Date: Time

Phone #: Contact Name:

Nearest major intersection:

Proximity to medium traffic road:

Proximity to heavily traveled roadway road:

Proximity to congested population:

Approx. Takeoff Time

Approx. Landing Time

Estimated Elevation

Safety Concerns:

Additional Comments:

Unedited flight video/photos available for FAA upon written request within 180 days of flight? ☐ Yes ☐ No
August 31, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Amendment to Exemption 11426 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

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

NO. FAA-2015-0173 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

 Alaska Aerial Media LLC. was issued an Exemption numbered 11426 

(hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of aerial cinematography 

and videography, as well as implementation of emergency use UAS systems with 

public entities. Alaska Aerial Media requests an amendment to the exemption to 

allow for the use of UAS aircraft over the weight of 55lbs operation for in aerial 

data collection and closed set motion picture applications with an additional aircraft 

we would like to add the Shotover U1 to our list of approved aircraft.

Attached is the Shotover U1 card showing its max takeoff weight with 

payload at 66lbs. 

 Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning 

this request for amendment to the Exemption. 

Sincerely, 

Ryan P. Marlow 

Alaska Aerial Media 

7960 Upper OMalley Road 

Anchorage Alaska 99507 

Tele: (907)-717-9794
#### The People of the State of New York v. Bennie Simms.

Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers and typewritten briefs. Memorandum : The matters of which the defendant complains are completely within his personal knowledge and he does not need counsel.
### SERVED: 

## JUNE 29,2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### FREEDOM AffiLINES 

## INC. FAA DOCKET No. CP09SW0005 (Civil Penalty Action) DMS No. FAA-2009-0980
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

## .. 2

. 

## ·-



# .. On October 29, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a Complaint. Freedom Airlines, Inc. ("Respondent") had earlier requested a hearing. By motion dated June 28, 2012, Respondent filed a Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing and moved to dismiss this proceeding, citing settlementofthe matter inthe contextofthe

- reorganization inbankruptcy ofRespondent, Mesa Airlines, Inc., and their parent;. company, Mesa Air Group, Inc.

. •"' 

### 2: IL!

14 C.P.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orparty may withdraw arequest for.a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearin{ru.J.d the answer,**~e** administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearinghaving been read and considered, ·it is ORDERED that: · •

. . 1. Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing is hereby GRANTED; .and**~** 2 !';. 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. SO ORDERED. (l·(; n('**~.** •**~** .. r (25< Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment - Service List <\· '.FAADocket No. CP09SW0005 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 · Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY Christopher Pappaioanou, 

### Respondent's Counsel Director, Legal Affairs Mesa Air Group 410 North 44th Street, Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85008 TEL: 602-685-4000 FAJ(: 602-685-4350 Annjenet Chennault; 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southwest Region, ASW-7E4, AC Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5071 FAX: 817-222-5092/5946 The Honorable Richard 

### C. Goodwin,

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 · TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121StaffAssistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536 '•

1 Service was by U.S. Mail For service in person orby expedited courier, use the foilowing address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
.
### §7270. Authorization of appropriations

Appropriations to carry out the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to annual authorization.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VI, §660, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 604.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–91, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 565, known as the Department of Energy Organization Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7101 of this title and Tables.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2623 

To require States to conduct DNA tests to ascertain the degree of genetic 

relatedness between two or more persons in accordance with a national 

standard. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2005 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require States to conduct DNA tests to ascertain the 

degree of genetic relatedness between two or more persons in accordance with a national standard. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2623 IH 

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT THAT STATES CONDUCT DNA 

2 TESTS TO ASCERTAIN THE DEGREE OF GE3 NETIC RELATEDNESS BETWEEN TWO OR 

4 MORE PERSONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NA5 TIONAL STANDARD. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 474 of the Social Security 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 674) is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(g)(1) If, during a fiscal year, the Secretary finds 

10 that a State operating a program under a State plan ap11 proved under this part does not have in effect such laws 

12 and procedures as may be necessary to ensure that every 

13 DNA test conducted pursuant to an order of a court of 

14 the State for the purpose of ascertaining the degree of 

15 genetic relatedness between 2 or more persons is con16 ducted in accordance with the standards developed in ac17 cordance with paragraph (2), or (if such laws and proce18 dures are in effect) that such a State has not complied 

19 with such a law or procedure in conducting such a test, 

20 the Secretary shall reduce the amount otherwise payable 

21 to the State under subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year 

22 by an amount equal to 10 percent of the otherwise payable 

23 amount. 

24 ‘‘(2)(A) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations 

25 governing the conduct of DNA tests referred to in para26 graph (1). The regulations shall include the requirement 
3 

•HR 2623 IH 

1 that the tests be conducted only by an entity accredited 

2 by the Secretary in accordance with subparagraph (B) to 

3 conduct such a test. 

4 ‘‘(B) The Secretary shall not accredit an entity to 

5 conduct DNA tests referred to in paragraph (1) unless 

6 the entity certifies to the Secretary that each employee 

7 of the entity who is responsible for performing a function 

8 relating to such a test has successfully completed training 

9 in conducting DNA tests in accordance with the regula10 tions prescribed under this paragraph.’’. 

11 (b) REGULATIONS.— 

12 (1) ISSUANCE.—Not later than 90 days after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

14 shall prescribe the regulations required by section 

15 474(g) of the Social Security Act (as added by the 

16 amendment made by subsection (a) of this section). 

17 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The regulations re18 ferred to in paragraph (1) shall take effect 6 months 

19 after issuance. 

Æ
### §7299. Transition

With the consent of the appropriate department or agency head concerned, the Secretary is authorized to utilize the services of such officers, employees, and other personnel of the departments and agencies from which functions have been transferred to the Secretary for such period of time as may reasonably be needed to facilitate the orderly transfer of functions under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, §711, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 609.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–91, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 565, known as the Department of Energy Organization Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7101 of this title and Tables.