alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11(c)(ii)
 BANK MUTUAL CORPORATION
2010 UPDATED FORM INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
     Number of Shares Optioned; Option Price.
 Vesting of Options.
 Number of Completed
    
    Maximum PercentageYears of Continuous
    
    of Shares BecomingEmployment After the
    
    Exercisable UnderDate of Grant of Option
    
    the OptionLess than 1 year
    
    ZeroAt least 1 but less than 2
    
    
    20
    %At least 2 but less than 3
    
    
    40
    %At least 3 but less than 4
    
    
    60
    %At least 4 but less than 5
    
    
    80
    %At least 5 Years
    
    
    100
    %
  Deferral of Exercise.
 Term of Option and Conditions of Exercise of Option During Employees Lifetime.
 1




---



##### 



Nontransferability.
 Method of Exercising Option.
 Manner of Payment.
 Method of Valuation.
 Delivery of Shares; Rights as Shareholder.
 Death or Disability of Employee.
 Other Termination.
 Forfeiture.
 2




---



##### 



Changes in Stock.
 No Employment Agreement Intended.
  Notices.
 Provisions of Plan Controlling.
 Successors.
 Government and Other Regulations.
 Wisconsin Contract.
 ISO Limitation
 3




---



##### 



BANK MUTUAL CORPORATIONBy:Title:ATTEST:Secretary
 Optionee
 4
Exhibit 32-8

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PECO Energy Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, that (i) the report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PECO Energy
Company.



/s/    Phillip S. BarnettPhillip S. BarnettSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: October 26, 2007



196
#### § 1032.86 Deduction for marketing services.

See § 1000.86.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Report: Digest of Education Statistics, 2015      

# Report: Digest of Education Statistics, 2015

This report provides a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of U.S. education, from pre-kindergarten through graduate school. Topics outlined in the report, which is the 51st in the series, include the participation of students, teachers, and faculty in educational institutions; student performance; the numbers of high school graduates and postsecondary degrees; and expenditures on education. 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/?utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources&utm_medium=federal-links
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000836

13-SEP-2013

08:24 AM
#### § 1160.116 [Reserved]
6103.305 Proceedings [Rule 305]. ( a ) *Requests for additional time.* The claimant, the Audit Division, or the agency may request additional time to make any filing.
( b ) *Conferences.* The judge will not engage in *ex parte* communications involving the underlying facts or merits of the claim. The judge may hold a conference with the claimant, the Audit Division, and the agency at any time, for any purpose. The judge may provide the participants a memorandum reflecting the results of a conference.
( c ) *Submissions.* The judge may require the submission of additional information at any time. The claimant, the Audit Division, or the agency may request an opportunity to make additional submissions; however, no such submission may be made unless authorized by the judge.
(December 10, 1979)

#### Nathan Brown et al., Petitioners, v State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated May 30, 1979, which affirmed a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dismissing petitioners’ complaint upon a finding of no probable cause to believe that respondents Cragswold, Inc., and the members of the board of directors of Cragswold, Inc., had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to housing. Order confirmed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed. Petitioners argue that the State Division of Human Rights failed to adequately investigate the allegations in their complaint. The regional director of the division office in which a complaint is filed is required to make a "prompt and fair investigation” of the allegations in the complaint (9 NYCRR 465.6 [a]). The method of investigation is left to the discretion of the regional director and may include written or oral inquiry (9 NYCRR 465.6 [b]). The complainants must be afforded an opportunity to rebut evidence submitted by or obtained from *607the respondents before the complaint may be dismissed for no probable cause (9 NYCRR 465.6 [c]). These procedures were followed to the letter by the regional director. The allegations in petitioners’ complaint were reviewed and an investigative inquiry form containing detailed questions pertaining to these allegations was sent to the Cragswold respondents. The response contained specific facts sufficient to rebut petitioners’ allegations. Petitioners were then given an opportunity to read and rebut the evidence submitted by the Cragswold respondents. Accordingly, since the division acted reasonably and arrived at its decision after investigating the petitioners’ allegations and allowing them an opportunity to be heard, the determination should be upheld (see *Matter of Cornwell v IBM Corp.,*67 AD2d 1034). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### Stanislaw Lakomy, appellee, v. Frank Rozak and Josephine Rozak, appellants.

Gen. No. 33,764.

Opinion filed January 27, 1930.

William Feldman, for appellants. John F. O’Toole, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### STARKEY, Respondent, v. WEBSTER el al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Action by Caroline C. Starkey against Howard S. Webster and others.

No opinion. Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.
970.0404-4 Solicitation provision and contract clauses. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 970.5204-1, Counterintelligence, into all management and operating contracts and other contracts for the management of DOE-owned facilities which include the security and classification/declassification clauses.
( b ) The contracting officer shall refer to 904.404 and 904.7103 for the prescription of solicitation provisions and contract clauses relating to safeguarding classified information and foreign ownership, control, or influence over contractors.
[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 36371, July 22, 2009]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ralston Clarke, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 588]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered August 20, 2002, *538convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court correctly admitted the hearsay testimony regarding the child victim’s accusation as evidence of a prompt outcry *(see People v McDaniel,*81 NY2d 10, 16-17 [1993]; *People v Vanterpool,*214 AD2d 429, 430 [1995]; *People v Kornowski,*178 AD2d 984 [1991]).

The defendant does not persuade this Court that, under the circumstances of this case, any errors applicable to the counts of which he was acquitted, which involved an alleged victim other than the victim at issue on this appeal, had a prejudicial spillover effect influencing his convictions *(see People v Baghai-Kermani,*84 NY2d 525, 531-532 [1994]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### 970.5215-2 [Reserved]
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  quarterly  report  of  AmBase  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Richard A. Bianco, Chief Executive 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 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; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


Date:  November 14, 2006                           /s/ Richard A. Bianco
                                                   ---------------------
                                                   Richard A. Bianco
                                                   Chairman, President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   AmBase Corporation
#### 622.807 Exemptions.

The Procurement Executive is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 22.807(a)(1).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: VICTOR ORLANDO RIVERA,

Debtor,

------------------------------

VICTOR ORLANDO RIVERA,

Appellant,

v.

ARCPE 1, LLP, AKA ARCPE Holding,

LLC,

Appellee. No. 21

- 60001

BAP No. 20

- 1024

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Spraker, Faris, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Rivera ’s request for oral

argument, set forth in the reply brief, is denied. 

# FILED

MAR 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 60001

Chapter 7 debtor Victor Orlando Rivera appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of

relief from the automatic stay to a ppe llee ARCPE 1, LLP . We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same

standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian

v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian) , 564 F.3d 1088, 1 090 (9th Cir. 2009). We

affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting ARPCE 1,

LLP ’s motion for relief from the automatic stay because the record supports such

relief and ARCPE 1, LLP established that it had a colorable claim to th e property

at issue

. See 11 U.S.C § 362(d)(4) (setting forth requirements for in rem relief

from the automatic stay ) ; Arkison v. Griffin (In re Griffin) , 719 F.3d 1126, 1128

(9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “a party

seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property

at issue”).

We reject as without merit Rivera’s contention that the BAP retaliated

against him.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 1001.76 Payments by a handler operating a partially regulated distributing plant.

See § 1000.76.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto GUERRERO-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10164

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

J. Michael Worley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gilberto Guerrero-Ramirez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### § 1007.41 [Reserved]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Adolescent Literacy Research Network      

# Adolescent Literacy Research Network

The Adolescent Literacy Research Network is a partnership of The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), designed to support each agency's effort to enhance literacy and employment skills of young American adults.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hs/adollit.html
#### In the Matter of Robert A. Spica, Petitioner, v New York State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Respondents.

Proceeding instituted in this court, pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law, to review a determination of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated July 9, 1979, which annulled an order of the State Division of Human Rights holding that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation engaged in unlawful discrimination based on petitioner’s physical disability, and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint. The petitioner filed a complaint against his employer with the State Division of Human Rights (division) on May 24, 1978. On June 11, 1979, the division rendered its decision finding no probable cause to believe there was discrimination and dismissed the complaint. The petitioner appealed to the Human Rights Appeal Board (board) on July 9, 1979 and the board, expressly noting that it was not reaching the merits, found: "It is beyond dispute that the Division exceeded the maximum time limit of *180 days*in the implementation of the above cited law [Executive Law, § 297 (subd 2)]. The failure of the Division to adhere to the above-cited mandatory time limit is in violation of *763Section 297 and is fatal as it requires the statutory dismissal of the instant complaint.” (Emphasis in original.) The time schedules specified in section 297 (subds 2, 4, pars a, c) of the Executive Law for the performance of certain acts on the part of the division are directory only *(Sarkisian Bros, v State Div. of Human Rights,*48 NY2d 816; *Matter of Gamble v State Human Rights Appeal Bd.,*71 AD2d 165). The board’s reliance upon the case of *State Div. of Human Rights v Board of Educ.*(53 AD2d 1043, affd 42 NY2d 862) is misplaced. That case (p 1044) dealt with "the exercise of the equitable powers *of the judiciary*to divest the division of jurisdiction” (emphasis added). As in the *Gamble*case, we do not find any showing of substantial prejudice by the employer herein. Further, we do not find the delay egregious enough to warrant a *sua sponte*exercise of discretion which would procedurally grant the employer more protection than the petitioner *(Matter of Gamble v New York Human Rights Appeal Bd., supra).*Determination annulled, with costs, and matter remitted to the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board to consider the petitioner’s appeal on the merits. Kane, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### § 1.79 Credits.

On films on which the Department or one of its agencies provides special assistance it shall be mutually agreed by the producer and the Director of Information what credits shall be given to the Department, and the form these credits will take.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Resource: Family-Based Approaches to Preventing Teen Dating Violence Research      

# Resource: Family-Based Approaches to Preventing Teen Dating Violence Research

This article analyzes research describing and evaluating two family-based approaches to preventing teen dating violence, Families for Safe Dates and Moms and Teens for Safe Dates.

http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/news/2015/10/research-roundup-family-based-approaches-preventing-teen-dating-violence?utm_source=youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=reports-and-resources
#### § 1126.40 Classes of utilization.

See § 1000.40.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAURICE FOSTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:05-cv-00770-SGW; 95-cr-242-12) Submitted: July 12, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court also construed the petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it as successive. Because the district court did not have jurisdiction under § 2255 to consider the validity of Foster’s sentence on his convictions arising out of the Northern District of Illinois, we decline to consider this case under § 2255. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Maurice Foster appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), asserting error under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of that order. As the district court correctly concluded, Foster does not meet the standard under In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000); thus, he was not entitled to proceed under § 2241. *Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. We grant Foster leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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.

AFFIRMED