alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10wpw13



 










Exhibit 10-P-13









	 	 	 
	 

	 	World Headquarters, Room 538
	 

	 	One American Road
	 

	 	Dearborn, MI 48126-2798
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	March ___, 2007






Dear      ,



In March 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors awarded you the opportunity to
earn restricted stock equivalents (RSEs). The size of this award opportunity was calculated by
converting one-half of the value of the amount of stock options that you otherwise would have
received to an equivalent value of RSEs. The Compensation Committee designated the following as
the 2006 performance metrics for this award:





	 	•	 	Company Performance
	 
	 	•	 	Strategic Direction and Operational Effectiveness
	 
	 	•	 	Leadership
	 
	 	•	 	People and Culture




The Compensation Committee has reviewed the 2006 performance-to-objectives and determined the 2006
award will payout at 62% of the grant. Therefore,
you are being awarded [ ] RSEs.



Your RSE award will be subject to a one-year restriction period, ending March ___, 2008, during
which time dividend equivalents will be paid in cash, if dividends are paid on Ford Common Stock.
As soon as practicable after the restriction lapses, shares of Ford Common Stock will be issued to
you, less any shares withheld to cover any tax liability on the value of the grant.



Your RSE award is made under the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan and is subject to its terms and
conditions provided at grant.



If you have any questions regarding your RSE award, please contact [      ] at [      ] or [      ] at [      ].




	 	 	 
	 

	 	Regards,
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	[      ], Director
	 

	 	Compensation & Executive Personnel
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

June 17, 2003 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. VERNICA SHABREE WARD

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 99-D-2836 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge

No. M2002-01816-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 30, 2003

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., separate concurring.

I agree with the majority opinion that the so-called “rule of three” evidence should have been

excluded in this case, based upon the trial court’s initial ruling that there was insufficient foundation

laid to allow its admissibility. I write separately to express that I limit my decision to the instant

case. After careful review, I concluded that the admissibility of this evidence was a very close

decision and deferred, as I must, to the trial court’s decision. However, with additional testimony

concerning the McDaniel factors, a proper foundation might be laid for admitting expert testimony

concerning the “rule of three.” 

___________________________________ 

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7

                                CORECOMM HOLDCO
                        ASSUMPTION OF WARRANT NO. CCL-2A
                                   ISSUED TO
                       MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC.
                                  TO PURCHASE
                   SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF CORECOMM LIMITED

         As part of the merger of CoreComm Merger Corp., a Delaware corporation,
with and into CoreComm Limited, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), which
will result in Limited becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of CoreComm Holdco,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Holdco"), and pursuant to Warrant No. CCL-2A,
dated April 12, 2001 (the "Warrant"), that you currently hold to purchase shares
of common stock of the Company, Holdco will assume the due and punctual
observance and performance of each and every covenant and condition of the
Warrant to be performed and observed by the Company, as well as all of the
obligations and liabilities under the Warrant. The Warrant will automatically be
converted into a warrant to purchase the number of shares of common stock of
Holdco, at the exercise price, set forth in the officer's certificate attached
hereto as Annex A, which shares of Holdco common stock Holdco agrees to provide
upon exercise of the Warrant.

         This assumption agreement shall be governed by and construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. All actions or
proceedings arising in connection with this assumption agreement shall be tried
and litigated only in the federal or state courts located in the County of New
York, State of New York, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction of for the
purpose of any such action or proceeding.

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this assumption
of warrants as of this 1st day of July, 2002.

                                    CORECOMM HOLDCO, INC.

                                    By: /s/ Michael A. Peterson
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Name: Michael A. Peterson
                                       Title: Executive Vice President -
                                              Chief Operating Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer

                                       2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 101 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 101

   Authorizing printing additional copies of Senate hearing entitled 
 ``Nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to be Associate Justice of the 
                 Supreme Court of the United States''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 28 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

     Mr. Biden (for himself and Mr. Hatch) submitted the following 
     resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Authorizing printing additional copies of Senate hearing entitled 
 ``Nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to be Associate Justice of the 
                 Supreme Court of the United States''.

    Resolved, That in addition to the usual number, there shall be 
printed 250 copies of volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Senate hearing 
entitled, ``Nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to be Associate Justice 
of the Supreme Court of the United States'', which may be printed at a 
cost not to exceed $1,200 per volume, for the use of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.

                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

tk/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JENNINGS, Assistant Field Office

Director of ICE; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-35837

D.C. No. 3:08-mc-05045-RSL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Antolin Andrew Marks, an immigration detainee, appeals pro se from the

district court’s order dismissing, pursuant to a pre-filing review order, his action

FILED

DEC 08 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
tk/Research 2 08-35837

brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d

1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (entry of a pre-filing order against a

vexatious litigant); In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d. 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal

for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant order). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing a pre-filing

review order that had been issued after giving Marks notice and an opportunity to

be heard, developing a record for review, making findings of previous harassment

and frivolous filings, and narrowly tailoring the remedy. See Molski, 500 F.3d at

1057 (explaining four factors district courts must examine before entering

pre-filing review orders).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Marks’s action

because he failed to comply with the pre-filing review order, which required him to

submit an affidavit, signed under the penalty of perjury, verifying that he had not

previously litigated any issues raised in his proposed complaint. 

Marks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
427 A.2d 1227

#### Commonwealth v. McKnight, Appellant.

Submitted June 29, 1979.

Eric E. Sterling, for appellant;

Vram Nedurian, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and LOUIK, JJ.*

*

Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation. Judge Maurice Louik of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
§ 1.180-2 Time and manner of making election and revocation. ( a ) *Election.* The claiming of a deduction on the taxpayer's return for an amount to which section 180 applies for amounts (otherwise chargeable to capital account) expended for fertilizer, lime, etc., shall constitute an election under section 180 and paragraph (a) of § 1.180-1. Such election shall be effective only for the taxable year for which the deduction is claimed.
( b ) *Revocation.* Once the election is made for any taxable year such election may not be revoked without the consent of the district director for the district in which the taxpayer's return is required to be filed. Such requests for consent shall be in writing and signed by the taxpayer or his authorized representative and shall set forth: ( 1 ) The name and address of the taxpayer;
( 2 ) The taxable year to which the revocation of the election is to apply;
( 3 ) The amount of expenditures paid or incurred during the taxable year, or portions thereof (where applicable), previously taken as a deduction on the return in respect of which the revocation of the election is to be applicable; and
( 4 ) The reasons for the request to revoke the election.
(74 Stat. 1001, 26 U.S.C. 180)
[T.D. 6548, 26 FR 1486, Feb. 22, 1961]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
     financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           2,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                        54
<INVENTORY>                                     10,074
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,038
<PP&E>                                          11,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,442
<BONDS>                                          1,797
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,674
<SALES>                                         12,367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,367
<CGS>                                            8,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    801
<INCOME-TAX>                                       103
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       681
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27



</TABLE>
• 

RCRA REVISION CHECKUST 32 

Standardsfor Generators - Waste Minimization Certifications 

51 FR 35190-35194 

October 1, 1986 

(HSWA Cluster I) 

FEDERAL 

REQUIREMENT 

FEDERAL 

RCRA 

CITATION 

ANALOGOUS 

STATE 

CITATION 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

MORE BROADEQUIV- STRIN- ER IN 

ALENT GENT SCOPE 

PART 262 - GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS WAC 173-303 

APPENDIX
 

UNIFORM HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST 

generator's 

certification (item 16) Appendix 180(1) X 

see attachment (2 pages) for new form 

uniform manifest 

instructions 8700-22 180(1) X 

• 

• October 1, 1986 - Page 1 of 1
#### Frank M. Ross *v.*Harold E. Hegstrom

Submitted May 15

decided May 21, 1968

*Joseph D. Harbaugh,*chief public defender, in support of the motions for the plaintiff.

MOTION FOR REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF MOTION TO REDUCE BOND

After consideration of the above-entitled motion, modification of the order of the Superior Court is denied.

MOTION FOR DIRECT APPEAL ON QUESTIONS OF LAW INVOLVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

The above-entitled motion is dismissed because it is misjoined and misdirected.
January 5, 2017

Mr. Paul Eisenhart, II 118 Muzzey Road Shepherdstown, WV 25443

Dear Mr. Eisenhart:

This is in response to your letter, dated February 16, 2016, sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2016-3899) petitioning th e Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from the requirements in FAA Order 8900.2 fo r appointment as a Designated Maintenance Examiner (DME), specifically, the experience requirements for concurrently and actively exercising the privileges of a valid aviation mech anic certificate while also employed by an FAA

Aviation Maintenance Technician School.

The relief you seek is not a regulatory require ment, therefore your petition for exemption is being dismissed. However, a blanket deviat ion was issued by the Regulatory and Support Division, AFS-600, to FAA Order 8900.2A on Fe bruary 10, 2016, that may address your concern. This has been enclosed for your refere nce. If you seek further relief, you would need to submit another request for deviation to AFS-600.

Sincerely,

/s/ James Crotty Manager, Aircraft and Airport

Rules Division

Enclosure
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8107 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to remove certain age 

restrictions on Medicaid eligibility for working adults with disabilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2024 

Mr. CISCOMANI (for himself and Ms. PEREZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to remove 

certain age restrictions on Medicaid eligibility for working adults with disabilities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Access to 

5 Medicaid Buy-in Programs Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8107 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVING CERTAIN AGE RESTRICTIONS ON MED2 ICAID ELIGIBILITY FOR WORKING ADULTS 

3 WITH DISABILITIES. 

4 (a) Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XV) of the Social Se5 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XV)) is amend6 ed by striking ‘‘, but less than 65,’’. 

7 (b) Section 1905(v)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 1396d(v)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘, but 

9 less than 65,’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
AMENDMENT #4 TO 1999 OPTION PLAN



 



Exhibit 10.10 (f)


AMENDMENT No. 4 TO THE

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS

OPTION PLAN



     This Amendment to the Charter Communications Option Plan as amended
through the date hereof (the “Plan”), is effective as of January 27, 2003.


1.     Article 6 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following section
after Section 6.11:



		
	 	     Section 6.12 Option Repricing. Notwithstanding anything contained
in the Plan to the contrary, the Administrator may, in its sole
discretion, approve an Option repricing. For the purposes of the
preceding sentence, an “Option repricing” shall include reducing the
Exercise Price of any outstanding Option, permitting the cancellation,
forfeiture or tender of outstanding Options in exchange for other equity
awards or for new Options with a lower Exercise Price, by any other
method repricing or replacing any outstanding Option, or taking any other
action deemed to be a “repricing” under the rules of the national
securities exchange or other market on which the shares of common stock
of the Public Company are listed or admitted to trading.



The terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect without
modification or amendment except as expressly set forth herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000854858
<NAME>                         Ajay Sports, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             434
<SECURITIES>                                       387
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,830
<PP&E>                                           1,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                     107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,348
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,239
<PREFERRED>                                      1,250
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,568)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,435
<SALES>                                          2,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,684
<CGS>                                            2,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,722)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.53)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 148 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 148

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United Nations should be 
encouraged to permit representatives of Taiwan to participate fully in 
                its activities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 5 (legislative day, September 27), 1993

Mr. Simon submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United Nations should be 
encouraged to permit representatives of Taiwan to participate fully in 
                its activities, and for other purposes.

Whereas the United States has had a long history of friendship with the 
        government of the Republic of China, more widely known as Taiwan;
Whereas Taiwan has the largest foreign reserves of any nation and a strong, 
        vibrant economy, and now has the 20th largest gross national product in 
        the world;
Whereas Taiwan has dramatically improved its record on human rights and now 
        routinely holds free and fair elections in a multiparty political 
        system;
Whereas agencies of the United States Government or the United Nations working 
        with Taiwan does not prevent or imperil a possible voluntary union 
        between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan any more than 
        recognizing separate governments in the former West Germany and the 
        former East Germany prevented the voluntary reunification of Germany;
Whereas Taiwan has much to contribute to the work and funding of the United 
        Nations;
Whereas governments of other nations that maintain diplomatic relations with the 
        People's Republic of China such as France and Norway, have also had 
        ministerial-level exchanges with Taipei; and
Whereas it is in the interest of the United States and the United Nations to 
        maintain good relations with a government and an economy as significant 
        as that on Taiwan: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the President, acting through the United States 
        Permanent Representative to the United Nations, should 
        encourage the United Nations to permit representatives of 
        Taiwan to participate fully in the activities of the United 
        Nations and its specialized agencies; and
            (2) Cabinet-level exchanges between Taiwan and the United 
        States should take place in the interests of both nations.
    Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this 
resolution to the President.

                                 <all>
```