alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1395 Diagnostic Hruby fundus lens. ( a ) *Identification.* A diagnostic Hruby fundus lens is a device that is a 55 diopter lens intended for use in the examination of the vitreous body and the fundus of the eye under slitlamp illumination and magnification.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35604, Sept. 14, 1988; 66 FR 38811, July 25, 2001]
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10(ddd)    
  


AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO

TO

SUPERIOR TELECOM INC.

STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN

FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

(AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 1, 2001)  


        WHEREAS, Superior TeleCom Inc. (the "Company") maintains the Superior TeleCom Inc. Stock Compensation Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Amended and Restated Effective as of July 1, 2001), as amended (the "Plan"); 



        WHEREAS, pursuant to Article X of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") may at any time, and from time to time,
amend, in whole or in part, any or all of the provisions of the Plan; and 


        WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan, effective as of December 12, 2002. 


        NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article X of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of December 12, 2002, as follows: 



        1.    Section
6.4 of the Plan is amended by adding the following language at the end thereof to read as follows: 




"Except
as otherwise provided herein, prior to the end of the Deferral Period, all rights associated with shares of Common Stock held in a Non-Employee Director's Deferred Stock Account shall be
exercised by the Company, as directed by the independent members of the Board. Any decision by the independent members of the Board shall be made by a majority of such directors attending a meeting at
which a quorum is present (which meeting may be held telephonically), or by written action in accordance with applicable law. For purposes of the Plan, the phrase "independent members of the Board"
means those members of the Board who are not members of the board of directors of The Alpine Group, Inc. ("Alpine") and who are currently not employees of Alpine." 





        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the 12th day of December, 2002. 



	 	 	SUPERIOR TELECOM INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

 
	 	 	 	 	












QuickLinks



Exhibit 10(ddd)
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 4, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40693 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GENARO GONZALEZ-MATA, also known as 

Francisco Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-93-ALL

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

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence

of Genaro Gonzalez-Mata. United States v. Gonzalez-Mata, 

No. 04-40693 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2004). The Supreme Court vacated

and remanded for further consideration in light of United States

v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See De La Cruz-Gonzalez v.

United States, 125 S. Ct. 1995 (2005). We requested and received

supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker. 
No. 04-40693 

-2-

Gonzalez-Mata argues that he is entitled to resentencing

because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory

application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines prohibited

by Booker. Gonzalez-Mata identifies no evidence in the record

suggesting that the district court would have imposed a lesser

sentence under an advisory guidelines system. See United States

v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for

cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). In fact, he concedes

that he cannot make the necessary showing of plain error that is

required by our precedent. He also correctly acknowledges that

this court has rejected the argument that a Booker error is a

structural error or that such error is presumed to be

prejudicial. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 520-22; see also United

States v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 560 n.9 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). 

Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision

requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we

reinstate our judgment affirming Gonzalez-Mata’s conviction and

sentence.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4152 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JODY SCOTT CALLOWAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CR-00-160)

Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles L. Morgan, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Kenneth M. Smith,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jody Scott Calloway pled guilty to bank larceny, 18

U.S.C. §§ 2113(c), 2 (2000), and money laundering, 18 U.S.C.A.

§§ 1956(h), 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2003). The district court imposed

a sentence of seventy-eight months. Calloway appeals the sentence,

arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it

refused to depart below the guideline range pursuant to U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0, p.s. (2002). We dismiss.

At sentencing, Calloway proffered a variety of factors

that he believed warranted a downward departure. The district

court decided not to depart. In this circumstance, we lack

jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision unless it

resulted from a mistaken belief that the court lacked the authority

to depart. United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338, 352-53 (4th

Cir. 2000); United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30 (4th Cir.

1990). There is no indication here that the court failed to

recognize its authority to depart.

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 86771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28544]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Disposal of 2.96 
Acres of Airport Land at Laconia Municipal Airport in Gilford, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a request from the Laconia Airport 
Authority in Gilford, NH, to dispose of 2.96 acres of airport land that 
is not required for aviation purposes at Laconia Municipal Airport.
    The subject parcel has been identified as property no longer needed 
for aviation use by the Laconia Airport Authority (LAA). The property, 
Lot 13, located along the east side of Lily Pond Road (NH Route 11C) in 
the Town of Gilford, is located on the northerly side of the airport's 
existing business park. The intended use of the property is for boat 
storage, which is a compatible use adjacent to the airport. Given the 
location of the parcel, the disposal of this property will have no 
effect on aviation land nor future development opportunities for the 
airport. The proceeds of the disposal will be placed in the airport's 
account and to be used for the operation and maintenance of the 
airport. Appropriate avigation easements will be placed on the property 
to ensure compatibility with the airport and the airport's airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions on providing comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W 12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents 
by contacting the FAA at the address listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and 
Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region 
Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 
01803. Telephone: 781-238-7618.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 17, 2016.
Gail B. Lattrell,
Manager, ANE-630.
[FR Doc. 2016-28544 Filed 11-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
No. 43136.

March 6, 1939

#### *Robert H. Montgomery.*

Income tax; deduction for additional State tax; ascertainment of loss; gift to son; depreciation on property acquired by gift. In accordance with its decision of May 2, 1938 (87 C. Cls. 218) and upon a stipulation by parties as to the amount due under said decision, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,760.11, with interest-,, thereon from March 13,1935, according to law.

PAY AND ALLOWANCES
AS TO LIABILITY OF ENDORSER.

Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

#### Chas. G. Alpeter v. J. L. Free.

Decided, 1912.

*Assignments of Non-Negotiabte Instruments.*

The assignor of a non-negotiable bond and coupons does not incur liability as an endorser.

Metcalfe, J. (sitting in place of Winch, J.); Marvin, J., and Niman, J., concur.

The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below, having brought this action to recover from the defendant, J. L. Free, as indorser on an interest coupon of a bond executed by the O. C. Saum Real Estate Company. This bond bears date May 15, 1907, is for $500, and is payable to the defendant J. L. Free. On the 10th day of July, 1907, the defendant indorsed the bond upon the back thereof as follows:

> “Cleveland, Ohio, July 10, 3907. For value received I hereby sell, assign, and transfer all my right, title and interest in the within bond to C. J. Alpeter. J. L. Free. ’ ’

*574There is no separate indorsement upon the conpon sued upon or upon any of the coupons. This bond also is not payable either to bearer or order and contains no words of negotiability. It also contains the following provision:

> ' “It can be transferred by indorsement, record thereof on the company’s books.”

The coupon, omitting dates, signatures, etc., reads as follows:

> “The O. C. Saum Real Estate Company will pay to bearer $15 in gold coin of the United States at the office of the Cleveland Trust Company of Cleveland, being six months ’ interest then due on its six per cent. 10-year debenture bond No. 53.”

On this state of facts is the defendant liable as an indorser of the coupon? We think not. Neither the bond nor the coupon is negotiable. The contract of indorsement relates entirely to negotiable paper. The assignment of non-negotiable paper does not render the assignor liable as an indorser. We do not place our holding upon the theory that the coupon required a separate indorsement, for we are satisfied that the interest coupon is merely an incident of the bond and title to it will pass by transfer of the bond. We place our holding purely upon the ground that the assignor thereof incurred no liability as indorser or otherwise by a simple transfer of the instrument. 10 Cyc., 599; 21 O. S., 221; 42 O. S., 30; 178 N. Y., 208; 110 N. Y., 169.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00100

- CV

SAMUEL CREGO v. GUILLERMO LASH & JOHN HOYSICK

On Appeal from the 404th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2010

- DCL

- 3050

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consider ed this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 19, 2013
Exhibit 10.5




 




Berkshire Income Realty, Inc.


One Beacon Street, Suite 1500


Boston, Massachusetts  02108




 




 




	

   


  	

  March 5,

  2003


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  Krupp

  Government Income Trust


  	

   


  
	

  Krupp

  Government Income Trust II


  	

   


  
	

  One Beacon

  Street


  	

   


  
	

  Boston,

  Massachusetts  02108


  	

   


  





 




Gentlemen:




 




Reference is made to the Waiver

and Standstill Agreement, dated as of August 22, 2002, by and among Krupp

Government Income Trust (“GIT”), Krupp Government Income Trust II

(“GIT II” and, collectively with GIT, the “Trusts”),

Berkshire Income Realty, Inc. and Berkshire Income Realty-OP, L.P. (the “Waiver

Agreement”). This is to confirm our agreement that, notwithstanding the

first sentence of Section 2.3 of the Waiver Agreement, the expiration date

of the exemption granted by the Trusts in Section 2.1 of the Waiver

Agreement is hereby extended from March 31, 2003 to June 30,

2003.  Except for the foregoing, all of

the terms and conditions of the Waiver Agreement remain in full force and

effect.




Kindly confirm the foregoing by

signing below.




 




	

   


  	

  BERKSHIRE

  INCOME REALTY, INC.


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ David C.

  Quade


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name:


  	

  David C.

  Quade


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title:


  	

  President


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  BERKSHIRE

  INCOME REALTY-OP, L.P.


  
	

   


  	

  by:


  	

  Berkshire

  Income Realty, Inc., its General Partner


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ David C.

  Quade


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name:


  	

  David C.

  Quade


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title:


  	

  President


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  Acknowledged and agreed as of the date first above written:


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  KRUPP

  GOVERNMENT INCOME TRUST


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  By:


  	

   /s/ Douglas Krupp


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name:


  	

  Douglas

  Krupp


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title:


  	

  Chairman


  
						





 





























 




	

   


  	

  KRUPP

  GOVERNMENT INCOME TRUST II


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Douglas

  Krupp


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Name:


  	

  Douglas

  Krupp


  
	

   


  	

   


  	

  Title:


  	

  Chairman


  
					





 




[Signature Page to Waiver Agreement

Amendment]




 




2
#### § 1.643(a)-4 Extraordinary dividends and taxable stock dividends.

In the case solely of a trust which qualifies under subpart B (section 651 and following) as a “simple trust,” there are excluded from distributable net income extraordinary dividends (whether paid in cash or in kind) or taxable stock dividends which are not distributed or credited to a beneficiary because the fiduciary in good faith determines that under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law such dividends are allocable to corpus. See section 665(e), paragraph (b) of § 1.665(e)-1, and paragraph (b) of § 1.665(e)-1A for the treatment of such dividends upon subsequent distribution.

[T.D. 7204, 37 FR 17134, Aug. 25, 1972]
[Cite as State v. Lemon , 2023
- Ohio
- 2027.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

- vs - RAMONE D. LEMON,

Defendant

- Appellant. CASE NO. 2023 - L - 047
Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas

Trial Court No. 2021 CR 000518

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Decided: June 20, 2023 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Charles E. Coulson , Lake County Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff

- Appellee).
Ramone D. Lemon , pro se, PID# A791

- 012, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnett Street, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Defendant

- Appellant).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J. {¶1} On May 4, 2023, appellant, Ramone D. Lemon, pro se, filed a motion for leave to file a delayed app eal pursuant to App.R. 5(A). No notice of appeal was filed with
the trial court. {¶2} App.R. 5(A) provides: {¶3} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases:2

Case No. 2023

- L

- 047 {¶4} “(a) Criminal proceedings; {¶5} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and {¶6} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. {¶7} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be fi led with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right

. Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of the notice of the appeal in the court of appeals. The movant also shall furnish an additional copy of the notice of appeal and a copy of the motion for leave to appeal to the clerk of the court of appea ls who shall serve the notice of appeal and the motions upon the prosecuting attorney. ” (Emphasis added.) {¶8} Appellant has not complied with App.R. 5(A) because he failed to file a notice of appeal in the trial court concurrently with the filing of his motion for leave to appeal with this court. See State v. Fisher , 46 Ohio App.2d 279 (1975). In addition, appel lant’s motion fails to advance reasons for filing an untimely appeal from the November 5, 2019 entry he is appealing. {¶9} Thus, appellant’s pro se motion is overruled. This matter is dismissed. {¶10} We note that appellant is not barred from filing a new motion for leave to appeal with this court and a notice of appeal in the trial court.

MATT LYNCH , J. , EUG E NE A. LUCCI , J.,

concur.
§ 1.45V-3 Rules relating to the increased credit amount for prevailing wage and apprenticeship. ( a ) *In general.* If any qualified clean hydrogen production facility (as defined in section 45V(c)(3)) satisfies the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, then the amount of the credit for producing qualified clean hydrogen determined under section 45V(a) with respect to qualified clean hydrogen described in section 45V(b)(2) is equal to the credit amount determined under section 45V(a) multiplied by five.
( b ) *Qualified clean hydrogen production facility requirements.* A qualified clean hydrogen production facility satisfies the requirements ofthis paragraph (b) if it is one of thefollowing— ( 1 ) A facility the construction of which began prior to January 29, 2023, and that meets the prevailing wage requirements of section 45(b)(7) and § 1.45-7 with respect to alterations or repairs of a qualified facility within the meaning of section 45V that occur after January 29, 2023 (to the extent applicable), and that meets the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of § 1.45-12; or
( 2 ) A facility that meets the prevailing wage requirements of section 45(b)(7) and § 1.45-7, the apprenticeship requirements of section 45(b)(8) and § 1.45-8, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of § 1.45-12 with respect to the construction, alteration, or repair of a qualified facility within the meaning of section 45V.
( c ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to qualified clean hydrogen production facilities placed in service in taxable years ending after June 25, 2024, and the construction of which begins after June 25, 2024. Taxpayers may apply this section to qualified clean hydrogen production facilities placed in service in taxable years ending on or before June 25, 2024, and qualified clean hydrogen production facilities placed in service in taxable years ending after June 25, 2024, the construction of which begins before June 25, 2024, provided that taxpayers follow this section in its entirety and in a consistent manner.
[T.D. 9998, 89 FR 53271, June 25, 2024]
Seventh Amendment to the Benefit Restoration Plan of Avon Products Inc 1/1/2007



 EXHIBIT 10.35 
 SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
 BENEFIT RESTORATION PENSION PLAN OF AVON PRODUCTS, INC. 

THIS SEVENTH AMENDMENT is made to the Benefit Restoration Pension Plan of Avon Products, Inc. by AVON PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York (the “Company”). 
 INTRODUCTION 
 The Company maintains the Benefit Restoration Pension Plan of Avon Products, Inc. (the “Plan”) which was last amended as of September 7,
2006. The Company now desires to amend the Plan to exclude severance pay from the definition of compensation for purposes of calculating the benefit for participants who terminate employment on and after January 1, 2007. 
 AMENDMENT 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the
Company does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2007, by adding a new paragraph to the end of Section 3.1 to read as follows: 
 “For purposes of determining the Supplemental Benefit under the Plan, the definition of “Compensation” in the Retirement Plan is modified to exclude severance pay from such definition, and thus from
consideration under the Plan, only for those Employees whose last day of active employment is on and after January 1, 2007.” 
 Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Seventh Amendment. 
  







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Seventh Amendment to be executed on the date set forth
below. 
  

					
		 	AVON PRODUCTS, INC.
			
	Date: December 6, 2006	 	By:	 	 /s/ Andrea Jung

		 	Title:	 	Chairman & CEO

  

 2
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 4.5


January 19, 1999


Rick Smyth
Lahaina Acquisitions, Inc.
2900 Atlantic Avenue
Fernandina Beach, FL 32034

Dear Rick:

This letter agreement will confirm that the $25,000 Beachside Commons Note due
May 3, 1999 will be converted from its present form to the $750,000 Convertible
Debenture dated December 14, 1998, with all rights, remedies and obligations
herein. The Conversion Shares and the 25,000 Shares issued under the Note will
be included in the Registrant's S-1 Registration Statement.




-----------------------------------
GCA Strategic Investment Fund, Ltd.



-----------------------------------
Rick Smyth
Lahaina Acquisitions, Inc.





                                      E-2