alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit








EXHBIT 10.2


FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
WASHINGTON TRUST BANCORP, INC.
2013 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN
A.The Washington Trust Bancorp, Inc. 2013 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended by deleting Section 15(b) in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:


“(b)    Payment in Stock.  Subject to approval by the Administrator, a grantee may elect to have the Corporation’s tax withholding obligation satisfied, in whole or in part, by authorizing the Corporation to withhold from shares of Stock to be issued pursuant to any Award a number of shares with an aggregate Fair Market Value (as of the date the withholding is effected) that would satisfy the withholding amount due; provided, however, that to the extent necessary to avoid adverse accounting treatment such share withholding may be limited to the minimum required tax withholding obligation.  The Administrator may also require Awards to be subject to mandatory share withholding up to the required withholding amount.  For purposes of share withholding, the Fair Market Value of withheld shares shall be determined in the same manner as the value of Stock includible in income of the Participants.”
B.This First Amendment shall be effective April, 3, 2017.
C.Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan is hereby confirmed in all other respects.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this First Amendment to be executed this 3rd day of April, 2017.
WASHINGTON TRUST BANCORP, INC.
By:     /s/ Joseph J. MarcAurele        
Joseph J. MarcAurele
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
§ 520.1450b Morantel tartrate cartridge. ( a ) *Specifications.* The drug product consists of a stainless-steel cylinder having both ends closed with polyethylene diffusing discs and containing a morantel tartrate paste. The paste contains 22.7 grams of morantel tartrate equivalent to 13.5 grams of morantel base.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.425 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Grazing cattle: Administer 1 cartridge to each animal at the start of the grazing season.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For control of the adult stage of the following gastrointestinal nematode infections in weaned calves and yearling cattle weighing a minimum of 200 pounds: *Ostertagia* spp., *Trichostrongylus axei, Cooperia* spp., and *Oesophagostomum radiatum.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Administer orally with the dosing gun to all cattle that will be grazing the same pasture. Effectiveness of the drug product is dependent upon continuous control of the gastrointestinal parasites for approximately 90 days following administration. Therefore, treated cattle should not be moved to pastures grazed in the same grazing season/calendar year by untreated cattle. Do not administer to cattle within 106 days of slaughter. Consult your veterinarian before administering to severely debilitated animals and for assistance in the diagnosis, treatment, and control of parasitism.
[49 FR 47831, Dec. 7, 1984, as amended at 51 FR 23415, June 27, 1986; 51 FR 41081, Nov. 13, 1986; 78 FR 28825, May 20, 2014]
<PAGE>   1

                                    EXHIBIT 5



December 21, 1999




The Ackerley Group, Inc.
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000
Seattle, WA  98101

         RE:      EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN AND FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED
                  EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION PLAN; LEGAL OPINION CONCERNING THE
                  VALIDITY OF SECURITIES OFFERED

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We are acting as counsel in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Act"), of 2,000,000 shares of common stock,
$.01 par value ("Shares"), of The Ackerley Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"). A registration statement on Form S-8 ("Registration Statement")
is being filed under the Act with respect to the offering of the Shares.

         In connection with the offering of the Shares, we have examined: (i)
the Employee Stock Purchase Plan effective January 1, 2000, which is filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to the Registration Statement ("ESPP"); (ii) the Fourth Amended and
Restated Employees Stock Option Plan ("Plan"), which is filed as Exhibit 4.2 to
the Registration Statement; (iii) the Registration Statement, including the
remainder of the exhibits; and (iv) such other documents as we have deemed
necessary to form the opinions hereinafter expressed. As to various questions of
fact material to such opinions, where relevant facts were not independently
established, we have relied upon statements of officers of the Company.

         Our opinion assumes that: (a) the Shares to be issued will be validly
authorized on the date of issuance; (b) the pertinent provisions of such "blue
sky" and securities laws as may be applicable have been complied with; and (c)
the Shares are issued in accordance with the terms of the ESPP and the Plan.

         Based and relying solely upon the foregoing, we advise you that, in our
opinion, the Shares, or any portion thereof, to the extent such Shares represent
original issuances by the Company, when issued pursuant to the ESPP and the Plan
after the Registration Statement has become effective under the Act will be
validly issued, fully paid, and nonassessable.

         Consent is hereby given to the filing of this opinion as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement. In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that
we come within the category of


<PAGE>   2

The Ackerley Group, Inc.
December 21, 1999
Page 2





persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act or the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder.



                                        Very truly yours,

                                        GRAHAM & DUNN PC

                                        /s/ Graham & Dunn PC
# C_2014421EN.01005801.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/58

---

Action brought on 25th April 2014 — ZZ v European Market and Securities Authority (ESMA)

(Case F-39/14)

2014/C 421/83

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Market and Securities Authority (ESMA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to renew the contract of the applicant and the compensation of the non-material harm endured.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision ESMA/2013/ED/23, dated 28th June 2013, concerning the applicant’s non-renewal of the contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision ESMA/2013/ED/23, dated 28th June 2013, concerning the applicant’s non-renewal of the contract;

th

| — | order the defendant to pay compensatory damages amounting to 20  000 euro for the endured non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensatory damages amounting to 20  000 euro for the endured non-material harm;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00096

- CV

Keith M. Jensen, P.C.

v.

Roger M. Briggs, Jr. §

§

§

§ From the 48th District Court

of Tarrant County (48

- 183100

- 00)

March 26, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner



### JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that A ppellant Keith M. Jensen, P.C. shall pay all of the

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Anne Gardner

________________ Justice Anne Gardner
§ 74.1102 FD&C Blue No. 2. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive FD&C Blue No. 2 shall conform in identity to the requirements of § 74.102(a)(1).
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for use in ingested drugs made with FD&C Blue No. 2 may contain only those diluents that are suitable and that are listed in part 73 of this chapter as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring drugs.
( b ) The color additive FD&C Blue No. 2 for use in coloring ingested drugs shall conform to the specifications in § 74.102(b).
( c ) The color additive FD&C Blue No. 2 may be safely used for coloring ingested drugs in amounts consistent with current good manufacturing practice.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Certification.* All batches of FD&C Blue No. 2 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
[48 FR 5260, Feb. 4, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 10090, Mar. 19, 1984; 64 FR 48290, Sept. 3, 1999]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7553 RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHAL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 97-7843 RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHAL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondents - Appellees.2 No. 97-7844 RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHAL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondents - Appellees.

No. 97-7845 RUSSELL THOMAS PALMER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES MARSHAL; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-711-R)3 Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Thomas Palmer, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition and denying several other post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt's orders and opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Palmer v. United States MarshalCA-97-711-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 23, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for bail pending appeal and 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. Appellant's motion for reconsideration of this court's order deferring action on the motion for bail is now moot and is denied as such.
AFFIRMED
---

EXHIBIT 13.A



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 Petaquilla Minerals Ltd. (the Company) on amended Form 20-F for the 15 months ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard Fifer, President and 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 the best of my knowledge:



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 materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Richard Fifer

Richard Fifer

(principal executive officer)



Dated:  November 25, 2008





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



---
#### § 814.106 HDE amendments and resubmitted HDE's.

An HDE or HDE supplement may be amended or resubmitted upon an applicant's own initiative, or at the request of FDA, for the same reasons and in the same manner as prescribed for PMA's in § 814.37, except that the timeframes set forth in § 814.37(c)(1) and (d) do not apply. If FDA requests an HDE applicant to submit an HDE amendment, and a written response to FDA's request is not received within 75 days of the date of the request, FDA will consider the pending HDE or HDE supplement to be withdrawn voluntarily by the applicant. Furthermore, if the HDE applicant, on its own initiative or at FDA's request, submits a major amendment as described in § 814.37(c)(1), the review period may be extended up to 75 days.

[63 FR 59220, Nov. 3, 1998]
§ 601.34 Evaluation of effectiveness. ( a ) The effectiveness of a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical is assessed by evaluating its ability to provide useful clinical information related to its proposed indications for use. The method of this evaluation varies depending upon the proposed indication(s) and may use one or more of the following criteria: ( 1 ) The claim of structure delineation is established by demonstrating in a defined clinical setting the ability to locate anatomical structures and to characterize their anatomy.
( 2 ) The claim of functional, physiological, or biochemical assessment is established by demonstrating in a defined clinical setting reliable measurement of function(s) or physiological, biochemical, or molecular process(es).
( 3 ) The claim of disease or pathology detection or assessment is established by demonstrating in a defined clinical setting that the diagnostic radiopharmaceutical has sufficient accuracy in identifying or characterizing the disease or pathology.
( 4 ) The claim of diagnostic or therapeutic patient management is established by demonstrating in a defined clinical setting that the test is useful in diagnostic or therapeutic patient management.
( 5 ) For a claim that does not fall within the indication categories identified in § 601.33, the applicant or sponsor should consult FDA on how to establish the effectiveness of the diagnostic radiopharmaceutical for the claim.
( b ) The accuracy and usefulness of the diagnostic information is determined by comparison with a reliable assessment of actual clinical status. A reliable assessment of actual clinical status may be provided by a diagnostic standard or standards of demonstrated accuracy. In the absence of such diagnostic standard(s), the actual clinical status must be established in another manner, e.g., patient followup.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 1

- 00 415

- CR

IN RE Delmar J. PRICE

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On June 15, 2011, relator Delmar J. Price filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se petitions and motions. However,

counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial

court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid

representation. See Robinson v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v.

State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on

pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is

represented by counsel. See Robinson , 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not

1 This proceeding arises out of Ca u se No. 2011

- CR

- 1035 , styled State of Te xas v. Delmar J. Price , pending in the 186t h Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Maria Teresa Herr presiding.04

- 11

- 00 415

- CR

- 2

- abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se petitions and motions filed in the

criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8( a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# C_2015346EN.01002701.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)

(Case T-254/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark NEW MAX - Earlier figurative Community trade mark MAX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 346/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F.-P. Hirschel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (represented by: initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 2035/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG and Warenhandelszentrum Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Warenhandelszentrum Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Warenhandelszentrum Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

1

---
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Funches, Otherwise Called George Eldorado, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,685. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Second Division.

April 22, 1969.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago, for appellant;

Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago, for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE LYONS.

Not to be published in full.
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals. 

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number:

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/15/2015 7:09:42 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
United States Court of Appeals ch

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 31, 2003

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

NATALIA KHARKHAN, ] Petition for Review of

 Petitioner, ] an Order of the Board of

 ] Immigration Appeals

No. 02-2177 v. ] 

 ] No. A70-488-310

JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ] 

 Respondent. ] 

 ] 

Upon consideration of the RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR TECHNICAL

CORRECTION OF DECISION, filed on July 22, 2003, by counsel for the

respondent,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The opinion of this court

issued on July 16, 2003, is AMENDED as follows: 

Replace the text of footnote 1 with the following:

On March 1, 2003, the INS ceased to exist as an independent agency under

the umbrella of the United States Department of Justice, and its functions were

transferred to the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. See Homeland

Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002). The

transition, however, is of little practical import to our disposition of the matter.