alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Served: February 26, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Lijt] OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF BRADLEYLAWRENCE GOOD FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0043
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

### :?l 

## 3.2

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013WP010008)has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service List Ronnie A. Yo er ChiefAdministrative Law Jud

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL 

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

Michael

### Sha~non, 

### Respondent's Counsel 301 E. Colorado, Suite 320 Pasadena, CA91101 Bradley Lawrence Good,

### Respondent 385 E. Green St, #2611 Pasadena, CA91101 TEL: 818-726-2101 EMAIL: bgood@ourgroup.org 

### ONE COPY

Lierre Green, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel (A WP-7.6) WesternRegion Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009 TEL: 310-725-7117 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0043 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
Form of 2010 Executive Claw Back Acknowledgement



 Exhibit 10.2(d)(xv) 
 Form of 2010 Executive Claw Back Acknowledgement 
 I acknowledge receiving a copy of the Executive Claw Back Policy
dated as of January 27, 2010. I also acknowledge receiving a target ICP award for the 2010 calendar year (normally payable in 2011 based on 2010 performance), a target performance cash award for the 2012 year (normally payable in 2013 based on 2012
performance), a restricted stock unit award dated January 27, 2010 (normally payable in shares of stock in 2013) and a grant of stock options dated January 27, 2010. In consideration of my receiving these awards, I agree that if the Board of
Directors of Cytec Industries Inc. directs Cytec, pursuant to the terms of the Executive Claw Back Policy and/or such awards, to recover from me all or any portion of the gross amount of such awards previously paid to me prior to the time of such
direction, I will immediately return such amount to Cytec. 
 I agree that the exercise of Cytec’s claw back rights shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Delaware without giving effect to the conflict of laws principles thereof. I agree that any and all disputes arising relating to Cytec’s exercise of its claw back rights are to be resolved exclusively by courts sitting in Delaware.
I irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of such courts and agree not to assert by way of motion, as a defense, or otherwise, any claim that either I or the Company is not subject personally to the jurisdiction of such court, that the action, suit
or proceeding is brought in an inconvenient forum, that the venue of the action, suit or proceeding is improper, or that the Executive Claw Back Policy or this acknowledgement may not be enforced in or by such court. 
  

	
	  

	Name
	
	  

	Date
#### LUHMAN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, W. & B. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by Leonie B. Luhman against the New York, Westchester & Boston Railway Company.

No opinioll. Judgment affirmed, with costs. For decision below, see 81 Misc. Rep. 537, 142 N. Y. Supp. 860.
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 10.a(ii)

                            RESTORATION STOCK OPTION
                                 {CURRENT DATE}

NAME
ADDRESS
ADDRESS

Dear                 :

      You have exercised a non-qualified stock option previously granted to you,
and you paid all or part of the option exercise price by delivery of Company
stock. In accordance with the program adopted by the Organization and
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, subject to your acceptance you
are granted a non-qualified Restoration Option for shares of Company common
stock, $1 par value, subject to the terms of the 1991 Long Term Stock Incentive
Plan, as follows:

         Date of Restoration Option:

         Number of Shares Granted:

         The Option Price:  $

         Exercisable in Full on & after:

         This Option Expires after:

      Copies of the 1991 Plan, the Company's most recent proxy statement, Annual
Report to Stockholders and a Prospectus are enclosed for your information,
except to the extent our records indicate you have already received such
documents. Additional copies of any of these documents are available from the
Company upon your request.

      Except for reference to an option plan other than the 1991 Plan and the
above specific terms, all of the terms and conditions of your most recent option
agreement are incorporated in this Restoration Option, and both the Company and
you are bound thereby. Please sign two copies of this document and return them
as soon as possible to Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. at the home office, since this
Restoration Option will not be effective until we receive the signed copies.

                                            MASCO CORPORATION

                                            By_________________________________
                                                Richard A. Manoogian
                                                Chairman of the Board and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

Accepted upon the terms above stated:

___________________________________
DATED:_____________________________
#### § 590.310 Opportunity for additional procedures.

Any party may file a motion requesting additional procedures, including the opportunity to file written comments, request written interrogatories or other discovery procedures, or request that a conference, oral presentation or trial-type hearing be held. The motion shall describe what type of procedure is requested and include the information required by §§ 590.311, 590.312 and 590.313, as appropriate. Failure to request additional procedures within the time specified in the notice of application or in the notice of procedure, if applicable, shall constitute a waiver of that right unless the Assistant Secretary for good cause shown grants additional time for requesting additional procedures. If no time limit is specified in the notice or order, additional procedures may be requested at any time prior to the issuance of a final opinion and order. At any time during a proceeding, the Assistant Secretary or presiding official may on his or her own initiative determine to provide additional procedures.

[54 FR 53531, Dec. 29, 1989; 55 FR 14916, Apr. 19, 1990]
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of January1, 2013 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation asDepositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Associationas Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and ParkBridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor relating to the COMM 2013-LC6Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates **(COMM 2013-LC6)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the"Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following:

 

1. All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,2016 to December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance withthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

Date: March 1, 2017
#### § 171.23 Enforcement.

If any person required to pay the annual fee fails to pay when the fee is due, or files a false certification with respect to qualifying as a small entity under the Regulatory Flexibility Criteria, the Commission may refuse to process any application submitted by or on behalf of the person with respect to any license issued to the person and may suspend or revoke any licenses held by the person. The filing of a false certification to qualify as a small entity under § 171.16(c) of this part may also result in punitive action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001.

[56 FR 31510, July 10, 1991]
Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-7014 

KEVIN L. HOBSON, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

Kevin L. Hobson, of Phoenix, Arizona, pro se. 

Maame A.F. Ewusi-Mensah, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With him on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Deborah A. 

Bynum, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, and Tracey P. Warren, Attorney, United States Department 

of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Bruce E. Kasold 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2008-7014 

KEVIN L. HOBSON 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 05-0547, 

Judge Bruce E. Kasold. 

 __________________________ 

DECIDED: February 6, 2008 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, BRYSON and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Kevin Hobson appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims, which reversed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying 

service connection for his disabilities, because the Secretary did not fulfill his duty to 

assist under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. Hobson v. Nicholson, No. 05-0547 (Vet. App. Nov. 9, 

2006). We dismiss the appeal. 

This court lacks jurisdiction over this case because Hobson did not timely appeal, 

and the time limit for filing a notice of appeal is not subject to equitable tolling. 
2008-7014 2

Furthermore, Hobson prevailed in his appeal at the Veterans Court, so there would be 

no issue to be considered here in any event.
IV 

House Calendar No. 75 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 393 

[Report No. 109–199] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Mrs. CAPITO, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of July 28, 2005, providing 

6 for consideration or disposition of a conference report to 

7 accompany the bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Fed-
2 

HRES 393 RH 

1 eral-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit 

2 programs, and for other purposes. 

House Calendar No. 75 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 393 

[Report No. 109–199] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluJULY 27, 2005 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
1429.303 Application of State and local taxes

to Government contractors and

subcontractors.

Contractors to be treated as agents of the Government for the purposes set forth in FAR 29.303(a)

shall require the written review and approval of the AS/PMB. The HCA shall submit requests for

approval through SOL, to the Director, PAM, for further action.

Parent topic: Subpart 1429.3 - State and Local Taxes
#### In re LASH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

In the matter of Sidney R. Lash.

No opinion. Application granted. Settle order on notice.
PGI 209.570-3 Procedures.

(1) After assessing the offeror’s direct financial interests in the development or construction of any

individual system or element of any system of systems, if the offeror—

(i) Has no direct financial interest in such systems, the contracting officer shall document the

contract file to that effect and may then further consider the offeror for award of the contract;

(ii) Has a direct financial interest in such systems, but the exception in DFARS 209.570-2(b)(2)

applies, the contracting officer shall document the contract file to that effect and may then further

consider the offeror for award of the contract;

(iii) Has a direct financial interest in such systems and the exception in DFARS 209.570-2(b)(2) does

not apply, but the conditions in DFARS 209.570-2(b)(1)(i) and (ii) do apply, the contracting officer—

(A) Shall document the contract file to that effect;

(B) May, in coordination with program officials, request an exception for the offeror from the

Secretary of Defense, in accordance with paragraph (2) of this subsection; and

(C) Shall not award to the offeror unless the Secretary of Defense grants the exception and provides

the required certification to Congress; or

(iv) Has a direct financial interest in such systems and the exceptions in DFARS 209.570-2(b)(1) and

(2) do not apply, the contracting officer shall not award to the offeror.

(2)(i) To process an exception under DFARS 209.570-2(b)(1), the contracting officer shall submit the

request and appropriate documentation to—

Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting

ATTN: OUSD(A&S) DPAP/PACC

3060 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-3060.

Phone: 703-695-4235 FAX: 703-693-9616

(ii) The action officer in the Office of the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting,

Program Acquisition and Contingency Contracting (DPAP/PACC), will process the request through

the Office of the Secretary of Defense and, if approved, to the appropriate committees of Congress.

The contracting officer shall not award a contract to the affected offeror until notified by the

DPAP/PACC action officer that the exception has been approved and transmitted to Congress.

Parent topic: PGI 209.570 Limitations on contractors acting as lead system integrators.
Subpart 5301.1 - PURPOSE, AUTHORITY,

AND ISSUANCE

Parent topic: Part 5301 - Federal Acquisition Regulations System

5301.101 Purpose

The Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) establishes

uniform policies and procedures for the Department of the Air Force (DAF) implementing and

supplementing the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Department of Defense FAR

Supplement (DFARS), and other Department of Defense publications concerning contracting.

DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) are companion resources arranged by parts, which

correspond to the relevant FAR parts. Supplements to the DAFFARS and MPs are prohibited.

5301.104 Applicability

The DAFFARS applies to all DAF acquisitions as they are defined in part 2 of the FAR, except where

expressly excluded.

5301.105-1 Publication and Code Arrangement

(a)(S-90) The DAFFARS is published on www.Acquisition.gov.

5301.170 Peer Reviews

(a) DPC Peer Reviews.

(2) To facilitate planning for and execution of DoD Peer Reviews (see DFARS 201.170 for applicable

competitive and noncompetitive thresholds), the SCO must use the Peer Review and Clearance

Forecasting Tool to submit quarterly peer review forecasts by the 15th of March, June, September,

and December each year. SAF/AQC will submit a consolidated forecast to DPC on behalf of the DAF

at the end of each quarter. When DoD Peer Review is required, follow the procedures in

MP5301.9001(a)(1)(i)(A)(2)(g), MP5301.9001(i)(2)(vi)(A)(1)(c), or MP5301.9001(i)(2)(vi) as

appropriate, regarding clearance.

(b) Component Peer Reviews. Pre-award peer reviews of solicitations for competitive procurements

and pre-award peer reviews for non-competitive procurements not subject to the requirements of

DFARS 201.170(a)(1)(i) or (ii) must be accomplished by complying with the clearance requirements

in DAFFARS 5301.90.
# Please wait...

If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF viewer may not be able to display this type of document.

You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows®, Mac, or Linux® by visiting http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.

For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/support/products/

acrreader.html.

Windows is either a registered trademark or a trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Mac is a trademark of Apple Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other

countries.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 407]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ407.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 2759]]

Public Law 109-407
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 307 West Wheat Street in Woodville, Texas, as the ``Chuck Fortenberry 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 2006 -  [H.R. 6078]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHUCK FORTENBERRY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 307 West Wheat Street in Woodville, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Chuck Fortenberry Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Chuck 
Fortenberry Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 18, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6078:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Sept. 28, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Herbert C. Whitman, Respondent, v. Arthur B. Cook, Petitioner.

Gen. No. 9,548.

opinion filed June 28, 1940.

Sig. B. Nelson and Burrel Barash, for petitioner; Hardy, Hardy & Witherell and Alvah S. Green, for respondent.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Wolfe.

‘ ‘Not to be published in full.”
Subpart 822.4 [Reserved]

Parent topic: PART 822 - APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS
#### LIBERMAN v. NEUBERGER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Philip Liberman against Louis C. Neuberger.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
PGI 217.78 DELETED(NO CURRENT PGI TEXT)       No current PGI text.    **Parent topic:** PGI Part 217 - SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS
AO 470 Order of Temporary Detention

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ORDER OF TEMPORARY DETENTION

) PENDING HEARING PURSUANT TO

) BAIL REFORM ACT

v. )

)

RONALD MCQUEEN ) 2:06-MJ-00075-DRB

ORDER ON MOTIONS

Upon the Defendant’s oral motion for a preliminary hearing on the criminal

complaint filed July 28, 2006 – made by defense counsel at the initial appearance on July 28,

2006 – and the Motion of the United States for a Detention Hearing (Doc. 4, July 28, 2006),

it is 

ORDERED that a detention and preliminary hearing are set for August 3, 2006, at

3:00 p.m. in District Courtroom 4A. Pending this hearing, the defendant shall be held in

custody by the United States Marshal and produced for the hearing.

Done this 31 day of July, 2006. st

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 7 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 1 of 1
J. 

Pickering 

is waived and he failed to demonstrate good cause or actual prejudice for 

failing to raise it on direct appeal. See NRS 34.810(1)(13). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

Saitta 

Gibbon's 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge 

Anthony Perry Oliver 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

pro se to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no 

relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that 

appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions 

which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have 

declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) [947A e
exv10w11wb






Exhibit 10.11(b)




AMENDMENT TO THE DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

OFFICER AND DIRECTOR SEVERANCE PLAN

As Amended and Restated as of January 2, 2009

As Further Amended October 20, 2009



The Delta Air Lines, Inc. Officer and Director Severance Plan, as amended and restated as of
January 2, 2009, and as further amended October 20, 2009 (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:



1. Section 11(g) of the Plan (definition of “Good Reason”) is amended by deleting subsection (A)
thereof in its entirety and inserting the following new subsection (A) (as marked) in its place:





	 	 	 	“(A) (i) any long-term award made to a Participant under the Delta Air Lines, Inc. 2007
Performance Compensation Plan, (ii) any other equity-based awards or other incentive
compensation awards made to a Participant by any of Delta (or any Affiliate) or Northwest
Airlines Corporation (or any subsidiary) either on or before January 1, 2009, (iii) any
equity-based awards, incentive compensation, retention payment, special travel or other
benefits provided to a Participant solely as a result of his or her initial employment with
Delta or any Affiliate and (iv) the elimination of post-retirement coverage under Delta’s
executive life insurance program, will be ignored for purposes of determining whether a
Participant has suffered a reduction that constitutes Good Reason;”




2. Except as expressly amended herein, the Plan, as amended, shall remain otherwise without change.