alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 10.33**

FIRST AMENDMENT 

TO THE 

TELLABS ADVANTAGEPROGRAM 

 Effective  as set forth  below,  this  Amendment  is made on the 31st day of  October,  2003,  by  TellabsOperations, Inc. (the "Corporation"), a Delaware corporation;

        WHEREAS,the Company executed the Tellabs Operations, Inc. Written Consent of Directors (the“Consent”) dated October 31, 2003, in order to merge the Vivace Networks, Inc.401(k) Retirement Plan (“Vivace Plan”) into the Tellabs Advantage Program(“Tellabs Program”) effective as of November 1, 2003; 

        WHEREAS,the Company executed the Special Amendment to the Vivace Networks, Inc. 401(k) RetirementPlan dated October 31, 2003 to eliminate all optional forms of distribution of benefitsunder the Vivace Plan by February 1, 2004; 

        WHEREAS,the Company desires to amend the Tellabs Program to comply with Section 411(d)(6) of theCode by allowing former Participants of the Vivace Plan to choose among the optional formsof benefits currently available to them until January 31, 2004; and 

        WHEREAS,the Company desires to amend the Tellabs Program pursuant to Article Eleven thereof. 

        NOW,THEREFORE, the sections of the Tellabs Program set forth below are amended as follows,with the changes indicated by double underline. All sections of the Tellabs Program shallremain in full force and effect. 

1.              Section 1.4 (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following terms: 

        “VivaceAccounts” means the Vivace Participant’s funds which were transferred from theVivace Plan to the Trust Fund as a result of the merger of the Vivace Plan into the Planeffective November 1, 2003.

"Vivace  Acquisition Date" means the date of the acquisition of Vivace Networks,  Inc. by Tellabs,  Inc., 

June 18, 2003. 

        “VivaceParticipant” means employees of Vivace Networks, Inc. or any subsidiary thereof whowere participants in the Vivace Plan on October 31, 2003 and whose Vivace Accountswere subsequently transferred from the Vivace Plan to the Trust Fund as a result of themerger of the Vivace Plan into the Plan effective November 1, 2003.

        “VivacePlan” means the Vivace Networks, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan as in effect on theVivace Acquisition Date, and as amended from time to time thereafter up to and includingits merger into the Plan effective November 1, 2003.

----
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6328-6329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01369]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting is open to the public. Out of an abundance of 
caution related to current and potential coronavirus developments, the 
public's means to observe this Board meeting will be via a webcast live 
on the internet and subsequently made available on-demand approximately 
one week after the event. Visit http://fdic.windrosemedia.com to view 
the live event. Visit http://fdic.windrosemedia.com/index.php?category=FDIC+Board+Meetings after the meeting. If you need 
any technical assistance, please visit our Video Help page at: https://www.fdic.gov/video.html.
    Observers requiring auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language 
interpretation) for this meeting should call 703-562-2404 (Voice) or 
703-649-4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Pursuant to the provisions of the 
``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby 
given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of 
Directors will meet in open session to consider the following matters:

Summary Agenda

    No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. 
These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of 
the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion 
agenda.
    Disposition of Minutes of a Board of Directors' Meeting Previously 
Distributed.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule on Role of Supervisory 
Guidance.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rule on Rescission 
and Removal of Transferred OTS Regulations, Definitions for Regulations 
Affecting All State Savings Associations (Part 390 Subpart Q).
    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Removal of Transferred OTS Regulations Regarding Securities Offerings 
of State Savings Associations, Rescission of Statement of Policy on the 
Use of Offering Circulars, Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Securities 
Offerings by State Nonmember Banks and State Savings Associations, and 
Other, Technical Amendments.
    Report of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the 
Board of Directors.

Discussion Agenda

    Memorandum and resolution re: Revisions to the FDIC's Guidelines 
for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Requests for further information 
concerning the meeting may be directed to Ms. Debra A. Decker, Deputy 
Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at 202-898-8748.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on January 15, 2021.


[[Page 6329]]


Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01369 Filed 1-15-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-01104 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Lopez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 9, 1964 after a jury trial, convicting him of possession of nar.cotic drugs as a felony, and imposing sentence upon him as a third felony offender. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion, there was no search here because' the police officer obtained possession of the narcotics after they were no longer in defendant’s possession; they had been discarded by him. *(People*v. *Battle,*12 N Y 2d 866; *People*v. *Pittman,*14 N Y 2d 885; *814
      *United States*v. *Zimple*318 P. 2d 676.) Even if it be assumed that there was a search, the search' was incidental to a lawful arrest based on probable cause. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
- 24-01073-F
- 'Ann Arbor' of 'Extra docs March 19'
#### Arthur A. Fischer, Appellant, v Ruth Fischer, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 7, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Blyn, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Appeal from order entered on February 23, 1978, dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, said order being subsumed in the judgment and reviewed on appeal therefrom. Concur — Birns, J. P,, Evans, Fein, Sullivan and Silverman, JJ.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report      2005-5026—ONLINE ONLY

----
M. P. No. 74-325.

#### State *v.*Leonard Jefferson.

*Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, for plaintiff-respondent. *Walter R. Stone,*Asst. Public Defender, for defendant-petitioner.

The Attorney General is directed to file answer to the motion for release on bail pending appeal pursuant to Rule 9 and therein to *show cause,*if any, why the motion should not be granted, said answer to be made in 'compliance with the provisions of Rule 14. Motion to assign matter for hearing on December 20, 1974 is denied.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

July 8, 2020 

Honorable W. Clayton Burch 

State Superintendent of Schools 

West Virginia Department of Education 

1900 Kanawha Boulevard East, State Capitol Complex - Building 6, Room 358 

Charleston, West Virginia 25305 

wburch@k12.wv.us 

Dear Superintendent Burch: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant award H027A180075 and H173A180071. 

The Department received your June 9, 2020 request on behalf of the West Virginia Department

of Education for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for 

obligation through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs State Lead, Josiah Willey, at 

Josiah.Willey@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

cc: State Director 

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600 

www.ed.gov 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Arbor EnTech Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brad Houtkin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.   Date:    July 27, 2010 /s/ Brad Houtkin Brad Houtkin Chief Financial Officer
C. A. No. 75-63.

#### State *v.*Nicholas A. Palmigiano.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney Gen*945eral, *William G. Brody,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for plaintiff-appellee. *Nicholas■ A. Palmigiano,*pro se, defendant-appellant.

*944State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 16(g) is denied.
#### 1827.301 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Administrator* means the Administrator of NASA or a duly authorized representative.

*Reportable item* means any invention, discovery, improvement, or innovation of the contractor, whether or not patentable or otherwise protectable under Title 35 of the United States Code, made in the performance of any work under any NASA contract or in the performance of any work that is reimbursable under any clause in any NASA contract providing for reimbursement of costs incurred before the effective date of the contract. Reportable items include, but are not limited to, new processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Reportable items also include new computer programs, and improvements to, or new applications of, existing computer programs, whether or not copyrightable or otherwise protectable under Title 17 of the United States Code.

*Subject invention,* in lieu of the definition in FAR 27.301, means any reportable item that is or may be patentable or otherwise protectable under Title 35 of the United States Code, or any novel variety of plant that is or may be protectable under the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321, *et seq.*).
#### 1616.105 Solicitation provision.

FAR 16.105 has no practical application because the statutory provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 89 obviate the issuance of solicitations.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles H. Eckhard, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Appellant specifically waived assignment of counsel upon this appeal. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate two judgments of conviction, the first rendered May 24,1946, for grand larceny, second degree, and the second rendered May 2, 1957 for burglary, third degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00449

- CV

Tracy Jo Mullins

v.

Matt Robert Mullins §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 2

of Parker County (CIV

- 16

- 0139)

July 27, 2017

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the final decree of

divorce is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion

.

It is further ordered that appellee Matt Robert Mullins shall pay all of the

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
215.604 Agency points of contact. ( a ) (3) The guidance at FAR 15.604(a)(3) applies to commercial solutions openings.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

)

JUSTIN D. REED, ) 

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) No. 12 cv 873

v. )

) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY ) 

COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, d/b/a )

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY, )

)

Defendant. ) 

Order

Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk”) moves to certify for

interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) this Court’s April 26, 2013, Order (Dkt. No. 42)

denying Norfolk’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) governs interlocutory appeals and provides as follows:

“When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise

appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a

controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference

of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance

the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such

order.”

Interlocutory appeal is appropriate when (1) the appeal presents a question of law; (2) it

is controlling; (3) it is contestable; (4) its resolution will expedite the resolution of the litigation;

and (5) the petition to appeal is filed in the district court within a reasonable amount of time after

entry of the order sought to be appealed. Ahrenholz v. Board of Trustees, 219 F.3d 674, 675 (7th

Cir. 2000). 

Here, the criteria for interlocutory appeal are met. Before the Court was a case of first

Case: 1:12-cv-00873 Document #: 47 Filed: 05/14/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:351
impression, interpreting a provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act. A “question of law”

refers “to a question regarding the meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision, regulation

or common law doctrine.” Id. at 676. The question is also controlling in that the outcome of the

entire case depended on interpreting the election of remedies provision of the statute.

Additionally, certifying this matter for interlocutory appeal will likely expedite resolution of the

litigation and result in significant savings of judicial resources. The posture of the case as it

stands will hinder any possibility of settlement and the plaintiff has regained his employment

with the defendant and thus his potential damages are quite limited. This Court believes it made

the appropriate ruling, finding that the statute is ambiguous and therefore the Department of

Labor’s interpretation is entitled to deference under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984). However, in recognizing that the election of

remedies provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act is ambiguous, the Court also

acknowledges the potential for different interpretations. The motion for interlocutory review is

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 14, 2013

Entered:_______________________________

 Sharon Johnson Coleman

Case: 1:12-cv-00873 Document #: 47 Filed: 05/14/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:352
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA
- 2011
- 0151 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 2009
-NM
- 205
- AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.
Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:

**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
Case: 1:12-cv-02636 Document #: 31 Filed: 08/20/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:194
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Brown, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on November 23, 1976, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
Exhibit 32(d)








CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED 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 Carolina Power & Light Company (the “Company”) for the
period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter M. Scott III, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




(1)           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/ Peter M. Scott
III


Peter M.
Scott III


Executive
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer


August 8,
2008








This
certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### In the Matter of Barbara A. Robinson, Petitioner, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent, dated November 28, 1977, and made after a hearing, which demoted petitioner from the position of railroad clerk to the position of railroad porter, effective December 5, 1977. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The findings of the respondent were based upon substantial evidence. Further, the penalty imposed is not shockingly disproportionate to the offense (see *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and Margett, JJ., concur.
First Department,

December, 1978

(December 5, 1978)

#### Alfred S. Goldfield et al., As Executors of Gladys M. Ludwig, Deceased, v Daniel K. Ludwig, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 10, 1978, unanimously affirmed without costs and without disbursements. Appeal from order of said court entered March 17, 1978, dismissed as academic, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Evans, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.
#### 1342.202 Assignment of contract administration.

The designee authorized to approve delegations of CAO functions not listed in FAR 42.302 is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### 1509.407 Suspension.
# Court of Appeals
**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00523

- CV

Cintas Corporation No. 2 and Walder A. Morgan

v
.
Charles Lloyd Hinson and wife, Rosa Maria Hinson

NO. 12

- CV

- 1815 IN THE 405TH DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE C HARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE
MT FEE CLK RECORD FILING STATEWIDE EFILING $10.00 $10.00 $1,106.00

$175.00 $20.00 01/16/2015 10/13/2014 08/01/2014 06/27/2014 06/27/2014 E

- PAID
E

- PAID

PAID E

- PAID
E

- PAID ANT
ANT ANT ANT
ANT



### The costs incurred on app eal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $1,321.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a tru e statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this April 10 , 2015

.