alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVE D MARC H 22 , 201 1 

### Tl^ARTMENTO F ^ ;ANSP0RW10 N U.S
. DEPARTMEN

T O FTRANSPORTATIOM : \OPERATION S OFFIC E O FHEARINGS WASHINGTON , D C ?Gi ! MA R2 3 A S : 3 ^
I N TH E MATTE RO F FLYIN G B AVIATIO

N FA A DOCKE

T NO
. [T O B E ASSIGNED ] (Civil Penalt

y Action) FDMS NO
. FAA-2011-006 6
NOTIC E OFASSIGNMENT O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceeding (heretofor

e designateda s Cas e No
. 2009NM070092 ) ha s bee n assignedt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar

dC
. Goodwin
. Al

l futur e pleading s an

d othe r communication s regarding thi s proceeding shall b e servedon th e Judge , th e FA A Hearing Docket , an

dth e othe r person s on th e attachedServic e List
.

Ronni e A
. XO6A Y 

### ^ / Chie f Administrativ e ^^w^^^dge Attachmen t - Servic e Lis tFDM S No
. FAA-2011-006 1 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ^ ON E COP Y Richar dA
. Johnson , Respondent' s Counse l 381 5 Rickenbacke r

Street , Suit e 20 8 Boise , I D 8370 5 TEL : 208-344-138 4 FAX : 208-344-512 1 Joan n M
. Putnam , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W
. Renton,W A 98057-335 6 TEL : 425-227-275 8 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , use th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W, , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building — Suit e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
#### § 986.15 Fiscal year.

*Fiscal year* means the twelve months from October 1 to September 30, both inclusive, or any other such period deemed appropriate by the Council and approved by the Secretary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership IV for
the quarter ended September 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                           1

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                            131,371
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                        0
<PP&E>                                                          5,121,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  2,453,326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  2,953,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   0
<BONDS>                                                         3,948,430
<COMMON>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    2,953,872
<SALES>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  246,048
<CGS>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     368,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                129,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (122,446)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (122,446)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           0


</TABLE>
#### § 61.7 Misrepresentation.

Any willful misrepresentation or any deceptive or fradulent practice made or committed by an applicant for a cottonseed sampler's certificate or for a cottonseed chemist's certificate or for an appeal grade certificate in connection with the sampling or grading of cottonseed by persons licensed under the act and the regulations or the issuance or use of a certificate not issued by a person licensed under the regulations in imitation of or that might mislead anyone to believe that such certificate was in fact issued by a person licensed under the act, or that might be otherwise false, misleading, or deceptive, may be deemed sufficient cause for debarring such applicant from any further benefits of the act.
#### Duane Chair Company *v.*Jackson.

October 15, 1913.

Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Whitfield superior court.' January 5, 1913.

*Maddox, McCamy & Shumate,*for plaintiff in error.

*George G. Glenn*and *M. G. Tarver,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

No error of law is complained of, and the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Phillip Gregory Crofton, Appellant

No. 06-12-00143-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CR1101568). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Phillip Gregory Crofton, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 4, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### NYCTL 1999-1 Trust et al., Respondents, v NY Pride Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Union Street Management Group, Ltd., Appellant. Baroda Properties, Inc., et al., Proposed Intervenors-Respondents.

Submitted October 22, 2007;

decided November 20, 2007

Reported below, 34 AD3d 774.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*9 NY3d 907 (2007)].
ex_106106.htm


Exhibit 10.37


 


Amendment No. 1


to the


Stock Yards Bancorp 2015 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan


 


This is Amendment No. 1 to the Stock Yards Bancorp 2015 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), which amendment shall be effective as of March 21, 2017, the date that it is approved by the Board of Directors of the Company (“Effective Date”).


 


Recitals


 


	 	
			A.

				
			Stock Yards Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Plan and has reserved the right to amend the Plan from time to time, subject to the approval of the shareholders or participants for certain types of amendments.

			



 


	 	
			B.

				
			The Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the amount of shares of Company Stock (as that term is defined in the Plan) that may be withheld to satisfy the Company’s tax withholding obligation up to an amount that does not exceed the maximum applicable withholding tax rate for federal, state, and local tax liabilities.

			



 


Amendment


 


Now, therefore, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


	 	
			1.

				
			As of the Effective Date, Section 14.2 of the Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

			



 


14.2     Election to Withhold Shares. If the Committee so permits, shares of Company Stock may be withheld to satisfy the Company’s tax withholding obligation with respect to Grants paid in Company Stock at the time such Grants become taxable, up to an amount that does not exceed the maximum applicable withholding tax rate for federal (including FICA), state, and local tax liabilities.


 


 


In witness whereof, a duly authorized officer of the Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed as of the Effective Date.


 


 


Stock Yards Bancorp, Inc.


 


By: /s/ David P. Heintzman                                     


 


Printed: David P. Heintzman


 


Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ______________________________

JEREMIAH W. GREEN *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-667-WKW

 

AJA ROBERTS *

Defendant. *

 ______________________________

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, and for good cause,

it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension from December 7, 2006 to January 12, 2007

to file a response to Defendant's written report, as supplemented. 

Done, this 14th day of December 2006.

 /s/Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 36 Filed 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 900.353 Qualification standards.

Statutory requirements for qualification of cooperative associations are provided in subsections (5) and (12) of section 608c of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*). The association must: (a) Be a cooperative marketing association of producers, qualified under the provisions of the Act of Congress of February 18, 1922, as amended, known as the “Capper-Volstead Act,” (7 U.S.C. 291, 292); (b) have its entire organization and all of its activities under the control of its members; (c) have full authority in the sale of its members' milk; and (d) be engaged in making collective sales or marketing of milk or milk products for the producers thereof. Qualification for exemption from deductions for marketing service payments under specific marketing orders and payment for milk of members under specific orders shall be determined in accordance with the terms of the respective marketing orders.

[32 FR 9821, July 6, 1967, as amended at 88 FR 82231, Nov. 24, 2023]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T he H onor abl e R a y m ond J . D e a r i e , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge ** f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ROGELI O M ARQU EZ - CR UZ,

P et i t i on er , v . E R I C H . H O L D E R , J R ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l,

R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 73199 A ge nc yN o. A 089- 854- 359 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r5, 2012

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: W . F L E T C H E R and F IS H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and D E A R IE , D i stri ct Judg e. ** R o g e lio M a r q u e z - C ru z p e titio n s f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

h is appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e . W e de ny the pe t i t i on. 

# FI LED NO V 29 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

1. T he B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tM a r que z di d notf i l e a n a s y l um appl i c a t i on w i thi n ar e a s onabl e t i m e gi ve n hi s c ha nge d c i r c um s t a nc e s i s s upport e d by subst ant i al evi dence. A l tho ug h the event s gi vi ng ri se t o the changed ci rc um st ance s o c c u rr e d in S e p te m b e ra n d O c to b e r2 0 0 8 , M a r q u e z f a ile d to ta k e a n ya c tio n to f ile a n a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n u n til A u g u s t 2 0 0 9 , a f te rh e w a s a rr e s te d f

o rd o m e s tic a s s au lt a nd r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs w e r e i ns t i tut e d a ga i ns thi m . T he e vi de nc e doe s not c o m p e l th e c o n c lu s io n th a t h is d e la yw a s r e a s o n ab le . Se e I N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 481 n. 1 ( 1992) ( “ T o r e ve r s e the B I A f i ndi ng w e m us tf

i nd tha tthe ev i d en ce n o to n l y s u

p p o r ts [ ac o n tr a ry ] c o n c lu s io n , b u t co m p el s i t. . . . ”) . 2. S ub st ant i al evi dence al so supp ort s the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM ar qu ez h a s n o t s h o w n ac le a rp r o b ab ilityth a t h e w ill b e p e r s e c u te d o rto rtu r e d if h e is r e m ove d t o M e xi c o. G i ve n hi s f a m i l y ’ s c ont i nue d s a f

e tyi n M e xi c o f

ol l ow i ng the 2008 i nc i de nt s , the abs e nc e of a ny e vi de nc e tha tM a r que z hi m s e l f w a s t a r ge t e d a nd the B I A ’ s obs e rva t i on tha tthe r e i s no r e a s on f orthe pe rpe tr a t or s of

the 2008 c r im e s to b e lie v e th a t M a r q u e z h a s a n yin f o rm a tio n o n o ra f

f ilia tio n w ith R og ac i ano A l va A l vare z, the re cord do es no tcom pel a c on cl usi on contraryt o that r e a c h e d b y th e B I A. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




































 



 
 

  EXHIBIT 10.1    
    


 
    EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CONSULTING AGREEMENT    
    


        This Eighth Amendment to Executive Consulting Agreement is made as of the 10th day of December, 2009, by and between
NBTY, Inc. (the "Company") and RUDOLPH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation ("RMA"). 


W
I T N E S S E T H : 


        WHEREAS,
the Company and RMA entered into that certain Executive Consulting Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2002 (as amended by the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the
Third Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment, the "Agreement"); 


        WHEREAS,
the term of the Agreement expires on December 31, 2009 (the "Term"); 


        WHEREAS,
the Compensation Committee of the Company (the "Committee"), by a unanimous written consent executed by all members of the Committee on November 30, 2009, decided to
extend the Term of the Agreement; and 


        WHEREAS,
RMA and ARTHUR RUDOLPH desire to continue to make their respective services as an Executive Consultant available to the Company. 



        NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises hereafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 


        1.    Term.    Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: 



        "1.    Retention.    The Company hereby retains RMA to provide the services of ARTHUR RUDOLPH and ARTHUR RUDOLPH
hereby accepts the engagement of Executive Consultant from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 (the "Term")." 




        2.    Continuity.    Except as otherwise expressly amended by this Eighth Amendment, the Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect. 


        3.    Governing Law; Counterparts.    This Amendment shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the
State of New York. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original for all purposes, and all of which when taken together constitute a
single counterpart instrument. 







 

        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Eighth Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 

 






 



							
	RUDOLPH MANAGEMENT

ASSOCIATES, INC.	 	NBTY, INC.
	
 By:	
 	
/s/ ARTHUR RUDOLPH







 	
 	
By:	
 	
/s/ HARVEY KAMIL  






 
	 	 	Arthur Rudolph
 President	 	 	 	Harvey Kamil
 President
	

Agreed and Consented:	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

/s/ ARTHUR RUDOLPH






  ARTHUR RUDOLPH, individually

	
 	

 	
 	

 




 

 2











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.1


EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CONSULTING AGREEMENT
§ 1015.204 Reporting debts. ( a ) DOE may disclose delinquent debts to consumer reporting agencies in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e), the DCIA, the revised Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR parts 900-904) published November 22, 2000, and other applicable authorities. DOE will ensure that all of the rights and protections afforded to the debtor under 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) have been fulfilled. Additional guidance is contained in Treasury's “Guide to the Federal Credit Bureau Program,” revised October 2001.
( b ) As described in § 1015.201(e), under the DCIA (31 U.S.C. 3711(g)), DOE is required to transfer all debts over 180 days delinquent to Treasury for purposes of debt collection (*i.e.,* cross-servicing). As part of its regular debt collection procedures, Treasury will report debts it is collecting to the appropriate designated credit reporting agencies on behalf of DOE. A debt not transferred to Treasury for purposes of debt collection, however, may be subject to the DCIA requirement to report all non-tax delinquent consumer debts to credit reporting agencies.
# Class I area SummaryTable for Worst Visibility Days

Sulfate Nitrate Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Fine Soil 

### Coarse Material Sea Salt Total Light Extinction Deciview Selection of Days 

## !<!!rntl•M!t.i$;l•iiJ!8 Worst 20% IMPROVE Scenario**:::noo~c.:;** Bdseline**,~000-LM** Baseline**~000-!.>~** BaselinE: Table Type

### tth!lml!lJ\i\Fi1~&1c-M Baseline to 2018 Projections**~:noo-c.~** 

### fJ.aselln& tolan02di & 

### 2018**PRPcnY-.~ :~000-0-4-**  

### Bas&!ine & 20 18 20DC-C4 8a<::e1rne & 

### ?000-04 Ba:::elme & RRF Calculation Method 

## Class I Area SummaryTable Class I Area Visibility Summary: Cape Romain NWRW, SC Class Iarea VisibilityConditions: 

## Best 20% Days

Reasonable Progress Summary 2000-04 Baseline Conditions 2005-09 Progress Period 2006-10 Progress Period 2007-11 Progress Period (Mm-1) IMm-1) (Mm-1) (Mm-1)

15.7 18.0 17.3 15.5 3.1 3.1 

### 2.9 2.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.6 

### 1.7 1.8 1.7 

### 1.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 

### 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.4 

### 22 2.9 2.4 

### 2.5 42.4 45.4 43.8 

### 41.6 14.3 15".0 14.6 14.1 

# Page 1 of 1

http:/ /vista.cira.colostate.edu/dev1/web/ReasonableProgress/Reas... 12/6/2013

# Class I area SummaryTable for WorstVisibilityDays

ih-clp

Sulfate 

### Nitrate Organic Carbon Elemental Carbon Fine Soil Coarse Material Sea Salt Total Light Extinction Deciview Selection of Days Best 20% IMPROVE

### llllft.l•lilll!~l;li{•l!J• Scenario**2000-0~** 

### Bastline :2000-C--1 8asJ&!in& 

### .cOOO·C-1 Basdme 

### 2000-04 8-a:s&l!ne**.~000-0)** 

### Bass!ins ?(J00--04 Rascl1ne 

### 2000-04 Ba"Seline RRF Calculation Method Table Type 

## !ll'!MM;!!IMIQM.jgtjl¥( Baseline to 2018 Projections 

### & 

### 201 BBas0 

### Case & 2018 PRPs 

### & 2018 PRPb & 2018 PRPcnw 

### & 2013 

### & 

### 2018 PflPb



## Class I Area SummaryTable Class I Area Visibility Summary: Cape Romain NWRW, SC Class I area VisibilityConditions: Worst 20% Days Reasonable Progress Summary 2000-04 Baseline Conditions 2005-09 Progress Period 2006-10 Progress Period 2007-11 Progress Period !Mm·l) (Mm-1) (Mm-1) (Mm-1) 96.5 107.6 85.8 73.1 5.3 4.2 4.5 4.7 23.8 15.9 17.0 

### 20.7 5.7 4.7 4.6 

### 4.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.2 

### 02 1.3 1.5 

### l.7 147.3 149.9 130.2 121.6 26.5 26.5 25.2 24.6 

# Page 1 of 1

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/dev1/web/ReasonableProgress/Reas... 12/6/2013
# SUBCHAPTER G—CONTRACT MANAGEMENT 

- PART 3442—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 
- PART 3443—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS 
- PART 3445—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY 
- PART 3447—TRANSPORTATION 

- PART 3442—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES    - Subpart 3442.70—Contract Monitoring     - 3442.7001   Litigation and claims clause.
    - 3442.7002   Delays clause.
  - Subpart 3442.71—Accessibility of Meetings, Conferences, and Seminars to Persons With Disabilities     - 3442.7101   Policy and clause.
- PART 3443—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS    - Subpart 3443.1—General     - 3443.107   Contract clause.
- PART 3445—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY    - Subpart 3445.3—Authorizing the Use and Rental of Government Property     - 3445.302   Contracts with foreign governments or international organizations.
- PART 3447—TRANSPORTATION    - Subpart 3447.7—Foreign Travel     - 3447.701   Foreign travel clause.
#### Donald Orenstein et al., Appellants, v Guy Barbaro, Respondent.

In an action for specific performance of a real estate purchase contract, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 8, 1980, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom all but the third decretal paragraph thereof and defendant’s motion is denied. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record before us indicates that there are triable issues of fact regarding a waiver of strict compliance with the terms of the option agreement. Thus, plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied and defendant’s motion for the same relief should have been denied as well. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.