alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 201—VOTING ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED**

Sec.
20101.
Congressional declaration of purpose.
20102.
Selection of polling facilities.
20103.
Selection of registration facilities.
20104.
Registration and voting aids.
20105.
Enforcement.
20106.
Relationship to Voting Rights Act of 1965.
20107.
Definitions.
EXHIBIT 10.2
                                                                    ------------

                  AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment, between Louis P. Scheps ("Mr. Scheps") and CAS Medical
Systems, Inc. ("CAS") amends an Employment Agrement, dated as of September 1,
1993, between Mr. Scheps and CAS, as amended prior to the date hereof (the
"Agreement"). Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Amendment, the
Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect.

1.  Term.
    ----

    The first two sentences of Section 1 of the Agreement are deleted and the
    following is substituted in their place:

    "Mr. Scheps is employed by CAS as President and Chief Executive Officer, and
    shall serve as a director of CAS if so elected by CAS' stockholders, in each
    case through August 31, 2000."

2.  Compensation.
    ------------

    Section 2 of the Agreement is modified to reflect an annual salary of
    $185,000.

3.  Termination.
    -----------

    The following shall be added as a new paragraph at the end of Section 3:

    "If a Change of Control (as hereinafter defined) occurs, and upon such
    Change of Control occurring this Agreement is not extended for a period of
    one year following the stated termination date of this Agreement, then Mr.
    Scheps shall be paid a lump sum of $250,000 on such stated termination
    date."

    "Change of Control" means (i) a sale of all or substantially all of CAS'
    assets, (ii) a merger involving CAS in which CAS is not the survivor and the
    CAS stockholders prior to the merger control less than fifty percent of the
    voting stock of the surviving entity, (iii) a sale by the CAS stockholders
    to an acquiror or acquirors acting in concert of more than a majority of the
    then outstanding stock of CAS owned by the CAS stockholders, or (iv) any
    event similar to any of the foregoing."

    IN WITNESS of the foregoing, the parties have executed this Amendment as of
    September 1, 1998.

CAS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.


/s/ Louis P. Scheps
-----------------------------
Louis P. Scheps
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,662
<PP&E>                                         447,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                 190,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,373
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,080
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,792)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,792)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.92)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

United Airlines, Inc. Complainant, 

### v. The Port ofAuthority ofNew York

and New Jersey Respondent.

ERRATA ORDER FAA Docket No. 16-14-13

On February 18, counsel for Complainant, United Airlines, Inc., filed a Motion pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19, requesting an extension oftime to March 27, to Answer Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Reply). Counsel advised that the Complainant needs the additional time in order to adequately respond to the Respondent's allegations, assertions, and reliefrequested in the Respondent's Motion for Swnmary Judgment Dismissingthe Compla int. Counsel further advised that the Respondent does not oppose this request for an extension oftime. Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition ofairport-related complaints. [See, Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirportEnforcement Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that an extension oftime may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency. See 14 CFR 

### § 16.ll(a). An extension oftime is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Complainant is hereby granted an extension oftime in which to file its Reply. The Complainant's Reply is now due on March 27, 2015 

## / 

# ., 1 r,_t

# 0at 

# fn

/ Randall S. Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Date Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 23, 2015 , I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) orpersonally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing Order addressed to:
Counsel for Respondent Carlene V. Mcintyre, Assistant General Counsel Arnold D. Kolikoff, Attorney Faith Tabafunda, Attorney THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY Law Department 225 Park Avenue South, 14th Floor New York, NY I0003 Counsel for Complainant Keith 

### J. Harrison, Esq. Gerald F. Murphy, Esq. Steven 

### J. Seiden, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Robert S. Span, Esq. Alan K. Steinbrecher, Esq. Sophy Chen, Esq. STEINBRECHER 

### & SPAN LLP 1155 F Street, N.W., Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004
Hand-Delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100
### §21005. Process for development and filing of plan; publication by Commission

#### (a) In general

The chief State election official shall develop the State plan under this part through a committee of appropriate individuals, including the chief election officials of the two most populous jurisdictions within the States, other local election officials, stake holders (including representatives of groups of individuals with disabilities), and other citizens, appointed for such purpose by the chief State election official.

#### (b) Publication of plan by Commission

After receiving the State plan of a State under this part, the Commission shall cause to have the plan posted on the Commission's website with a notice published in the Federal Register.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title II, §255, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1697; Pub. L. 112–74, div. C, title VI, §622(1), Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 926.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15405 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

2011—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–74 inserted "posted on the Commission's website with a notice" after "cause to have the plan".
#### CRESCENT CHEMICAL MFC. CO., Respondent, v. HORYN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 25, 1903.)

Action by the Crescent Chemical Manufacturing Company against “John” Horyn and others.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, by default, with costs.
### §60502. Transitioning experimental research into operational services

(a) Interagency Process.—The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Administrator, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other relevant stakeholders, shall develop a process to transition, when appropriate, Administration Earth science and space weather missions or sensors into operational status. The process shall include coordination of annual agency budget requests as required to execute the transitions.

(b) Responsible Agency Official.—The Administrator and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall each designate an agency official who shall have the responsibility for and authority to lead the Administration's and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's transition activities and interagency coordination.

(c) Plan.—For each mission or sensor that is determined to be appropriate for transition under subsection (a), the Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall transmit to Congress a joint plan for conducting the transition. The plan shall include the strategy, milestones, and budget required to execute the transition. The transition plan shall be transmitted to Congress no later than 60 days after the successful completion of the mission or sensor critical design review.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3425.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 60502(a) | 42 U.S.C. 17712(b). | Pub. L. 110–422, title II, §204(b), (c), (d), Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4785. |
| 60502(b) | 42 U.S.C. 17712(c). | |
| 60502(c) | 42 U.S.C. 17712(d). | |

Section
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calamos Asset Management, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Cristina WasiakCristina WasiakSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

       In connection with the annual reportof CNB Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, W. JenningsDuncan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the CNB Corporation, certifyto the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
| 1.     | The  above-listed Form 10-K 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 above-listed Form 10-K fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company. |
| Date:  March  9, 2010 | */s/W. Jennings Duncan*                    W. Jennings Duncan  President and Chief Executive Officer |
|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
July 6 , 2015

Mr. William F. Schmidt

SCHMIDT Geomatic Mapping, Inc.

dba “AERO TECH SURVEYS”

6810 Airport Drive

Riverside, CA 92504

Dear Mr. Schmidt :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Titl e 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your March 31 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0 905 ),

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why gr anting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any furt her, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspac e Rules Division

Enclosure
### §60144. Reimbursement for assistance

The Administrator, the Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other United States Government agencies may provide assistance to land remote sensing system operators under the provisions of this chapter. Substantial assistance shall be reimbursed by the operator, except as otherwise provided by law.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3420.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 60144 | 15 U.S.C. 5654. | Pub. L. 102–555, title V, §504, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4177. |

Section
§ 924.16 Required program amendments. Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(f)(1), Mississippi is required to submit to OSM by the specified date the following written, proposed program amendments, or a description of the amendments to be proposed, that meet the requirements of SMCRA and 30 CFR chapter VII and a timetable for enactment that is consistent with Mississippi's established administrative or legislative procedures. ( a ) - ( n ) [Reserved]
[63 FR 1362, Jan. 9, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 34599, June 25, 1998; 63 FR 43321, Aug. 13, 1998; 64 FR 57571, Oct. 26, 1999; 67 FR 71832, Dec. 3, 2002]
#### ORR, Respondent, v. CORNING, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 16,1905.)

Action by William Orr against Anna Corning.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, unless the appellant, on or before April 15, 190a, file and serve the printed papers on appeal as provided by rule 41, in which event said motion is denied; and, in case said printed papers are not served and filed as above provided, upon filing due proof of such default, the respondent may enter an order dismissing said appeal absolutely, with costs, without further notice.
§ 71.100 Respirable dust standard. Each operator shall continuously maintain the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift to which each miner in the active workings of each mine is exposed, as measured with an approved sampling device and expressed in terms of an equivalent concentration, at or below: ( a ) 2.0 milligrams of respirable dust per cubic meter of air (mg/m3).
( b ) 1.5 mg/m3 as of August 1, 2016.
### §853. Retention of registration statements; public examination; withdrawal

The Attorney General shall retain in permanent form one copy of all registration statements filed under this subchapter. They shall be public records and open to public examination at such reasonable hours and under such regulations as the Attorney General prescribes, except that the Attorney General, having due regard for the national security and public interest, may withdraw any registration statement from public examination.

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 849, §4, 70 Stat. 900.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Internal Security Act of 1950 which comprises subchapters I to III of this chapter.
§ 736.15 Implementation, enforcement, and maintenance of a Federal program. ( a ) The Director shall implement, administer, enforce, and maintain a Federal program or any revision thereto not later than 30 days after a Federal program is promulgated or revised.
( b ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the Director shall implement the procedures and criteria of a Federal program for a State for designating lands unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining one year after a Federal program is made effective for a State.
( 2 ) When a complete or partial Federal program is promulgated because of a State's failure to implement, maintain, or enforce adequately all or a part of its State program, all applicable portions of the Federal program for the State under this part shall be effective immediately upon implementation of the Federal program.
[48 FR 41348, Sept. 14, 1983]
#### Herman J. Stern et al., Appellants, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 33227-33232.)

— -Motion for reargument, or in the alternative, for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs. There is question whether the arguments presented upon the appeal herein and upon this motion were fully presented upon claimants’ motion in the Court of Claims to vacate the order of dismissal and our decision does not preclude a motion in the Court of Claims for reargument- thereof.
#### Jose M. Garcia, Appellant, v. New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

— Order entered on April 12, 1962 upon plaintiff’s motion for an examination before trial and for discovery and inspection unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to provide (1) that defendant shall permit plaintiff or his photographer to take still photographs from the subject station platform, and that when taken plaintiff shall deliver copies therof to defendant or its attorney, and (2) that defendant shall produce at said examination before trial its rules and regulations in force on the date of the accident relating to the operation, control and speed of trains; and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. There is not a sufficiently unequivocal showing in the record to sustain defendant’s argument that the appeal from this order be dismissed as untimely. Settle order on notice. Appeal from order entered May 11, 1962, denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of said order entered April 12, 1962, dismissed, without costs. Order entered on 'July 2, 1962 denying plaintiff’s motion for discovery and inspection of photographs of the accident scene taken by and in possession of defendant unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, without costs. Present-day policy regarding pretrial disclosure mandates these dispositions *(Mudge*v. *Hughes Gonstr. Go.,*16 A D 2d 106; *Newmcm*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.,*7 A D 2d 628; and see *Danbois*v. *New York Cent. B. B. Co.,*12 N Y 2d 234). Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
1

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Henry

L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2313

___________

Richard E. Marks, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

T. C. Outlaw, Warden *

FCI, Forrest City, AR, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 24, 2010

Filed: March 2, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Richard E. Marks appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Having reviewed the record de novo, see Lopez-Lopez

v.Sanders, 590 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2010), we find no basis for reversal.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

____________________________