alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.29 First Amendment to Salary Continuation Agreement for Donita Koval  FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT  DATED DECEMBER 23, 2003 FOR DONITA KOVAL  THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (First Amendment) is made and entered into this 18th day of December 2006, by and between OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, located in State College, Pennsylvania (the Bank), and DONITA KOVAL (the Officer).  WITNESSTH:  WHEREAS, on December 23, 2003, the Bank and the Officer entered into a deferred compensation agreement titled Omega Bank, National Association Salary Continuation Agreement, (Agreement); and  WHEREAS, the Bank and the Officer desire to amend the Agreement through this First Amendment.  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Bank and the Officer agree as follows:  1.
        Section 1.8 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
  1.8.
        Normal Retirement Age means the Officers 62nd birthday.
  2.           Section 2.3.1 is hereby amended by adding the following to the end thereof:  The liability shall be calculated assuming that the Officer accrues her Normal Retirement Benefit ratably over the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending on her Normal Retirement Age.  However, effective as of January 1, 2006, the difference between the Officers accrued benefit as of December 31, 2005 and the Officers projected accrued benefit at Normal Retirement Age shall accrue ratably over the period beginning on January 1, 2006 and ending on her Normal Retirement Age.  3.
        A new Section 8.11 is hereby added to the Agreement which shall read as follows:
  8.11Code Section 409A Matters.  Code Section 409A shall only apply to that portion of the Officers benefit that was not earned and vested prior to January 1, 2005.  The parties intend that the increased accruals that result from the change in the Normal Retirement Age to age 62 as of January 1, 2006 shall not be treated as a material modification so as to affect the pre-January 1, 2005 accruals and that such increased accruals shall be subject to Code Section 409A.  4.
        This First Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2006.
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Officer and the Bank have executed this First Amendment on the date set forth above.  OFFICER:
      /s/ Donita Koval
      
      
      DONITA KOVAL
    
    BANK: 
      OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
      By:              /s/
      David B. Lee
             
             Print Name:        David
      B. Lee
                                  
             Print Title:          Chairman
                                      39
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                    COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                3 MONTHS ENDED
                                                                   AUGUST 31,
                                                             1997             1996
                                                         ------------     ------------ 
<S>                                                      <C>              <C>
Weighted average number of shares outstanding:

         Primary                                           41,306,434       40,097,057

         Fully diluted                                     41,306,434       40,057,097

Primary:

         Net loss                                        $ (4,687,199)    $   (964,145)
         Paid and cumulative undeclared preferred
           stock dividends                                   (152,888)        (125,000)
         Implied dividend equal to intrinsic value of
           preferred stock conversion feature                (456,119)        (156,250)
                                                         ------------     ------------ 
                                                         $ (5,296,206)    $ (1,245,395)

Net loss applicable to common stock                      $      (0.13)    $      (0.03)
</TABLE>

For the above years, earnings per share, assuming full dilution, has not been
presented since the effect would be antidiluting.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI# I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000704

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
In the Matter of the Application of PIONEER MILL COMPANY, LIMITED, to register title and confirm its title to land situate at L ā hain ā , Island and County of Maui, State of Hawai # i, and KAHOMA LAND LLC, Substituted Applicant as to Lots 1, 2 and 3A.

APPEAL FROM THE LAND COURT (Ld. Ct. App. No. 439(amended), Ld. Ct. Case No. 09-0300)

ORDER (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.) Upon review of the document titled "To Reconsider its Order" filed by self-represented non-party Joseph Kanaina Kini ( **Kini** ) on November 27, 2020, which we construe as a motion for reconsideration of our Order entered on October 19, 2020, and the record on appeal, it appears that Kini's motion is untimely because it was not filed within 10 days after the filing of the Order as required under Rule 40 of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure. Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000704 02-DEC-2020 07:54 AM Dkt. 508 ODMRNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI# I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kini's motion "To Reconsider its Order" is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 2, 2020. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                       TO THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          SYSTEMS ASSURANCE CORPORATION

     Systems Assurance  Corporation,  a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware:

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     7.  That the Board of  Directors  of  Systems  Assurance  Corporation  duly
adopted a resolution  setting forth the proposed amendment of the Certificate of
Incorporation of said corporation,  declaring said amendment to be advisable and
taking action of the stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof.
The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

     FIRST: The name for the corporation is Digital Commerce International, Inc.

         8.  That said amendments were duly adopted by shareholder  consent
in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Sections  228 and 242 of the  General
Corporation Laws of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS  HEREOF,  said  Systems  Assurance  Corporation  has caused this
Certificate to be signed by its authorized officer this 11th day of June, 1999.

                                            By:_________________________________
                                                 Dean H. Becker, President

STATE OF UTAH_____  )
         _________  :  ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )

     On the 11th day of June,  1999, Dean H. Becker  personally  appeared before
me, a Notary Public, who acknowledged that he executed the foregoing Certificate
of Amendment on behalf of the above entity.

                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Notary Public

My Commission Expires:
§ 136.23 Persons to whom contract health services will be provided. ( a ) *In general.* To the extent that resources permit, and subject to the provisions of this subpart, contract health services will be made available as medically indicated, when necessary health services by an Indian Health Service facility are not reasonably accessible or available, to persons described in and in accordance with § 136.12 of this part if those persons: ( 1 ) Reside within the United States and on a reservation located within a contract health service delivery area; or
( 2 ) Do not reside on a reservation but reside within a contract health service delivery area and: ( i ) Are members of the tribe or tribes located on that reservation or of the tribe or tribes for which the reservation was established; or
( ii ) Maintain close economic and social ties with that tribe or tribes.
( b ) *Students and transients.* Subject to the provisions of this subpart, contract health services will be made available to students and transients who would be eligible for contract health services at the place of their permanent residence within a contract health service delivery area, but are temporarily absent from their residence as follows: ( 1 ) Student—during their full-time attendance at programs of vocational, technical, or academic education, including normal school breaks (such as vacations, semester or other scheduled breaks occurring during their attendance) and for a period not to exceed 180 days after the completion of the course of study.
( 2 ) Transients (persons who are in travel or are temporarily employed, such as seasonal or migratory workers) during their absence.
( c ) *Other persons outside the contract health service delivery area.* Persons who leave the contract health service delivery area in which they are eligible for contract health service and are neither students nor transients will be eligible for contract health service for a period not to exceed 180 days from such departure.
( d ) *Foster children.* Indian children who are placed in foster care outside a contract health service delivery area by order of a court of competent jurisdiction and who were eligible for contract health services at the time of the court order shall continue to be eligible for contract health services while in foster care.
( e ) *Priorities for contract health services.* When funds are insufficient to provide the volume of contract health services indicated as needed by the population residing in a contract health service delivery area, priorities for service shall be determined on the basis of relative medical need.
( f ) *Alternate resources.* The term “alternate resources” is defined in § 136.61(c) of subpart G of this part.
[64 FR 58319, Oct. 28, 1999. Redesignated and amended at 67 FR 35342, May 17, 2002]
#### Costello KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-1319.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 3, 1975.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Sarasota, and Harold H. Moore and Steven H. Denman, Asst. Public Defenders, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

Upon consideration of appellant’s motion, we granted him full appellate review under *Baggett v. Wainwright,*Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239, of the three judgments and sentences entered in the Polk County Circuit Court in Cases #CF74-800, #CF74-.801, and # CF74-802.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to the three informations, each of which charged assault with intent to commit rape, extortion and kidnapping. The said offenses were alleged to have been committed upon three different victims. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and, pursuant to the plea bargain, was sentenced to serve ten years in the state prison on each information, the sentences to run concurrently. Being unable to ascertain the specific sentence imposed on each of the violations contained in each count of the three informations, we have in several prior cases held such sentences to be general and, therefore, invalid. *Darden v.*State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 306 So.2d 581; *Haddon v. State,*Fla.App.2d 1975, 307 So.2d 238; *Long v.*State, Fla.App.2d 1975, 310 So.2d 35; *Farmer v. State,*Fla.App.2d 1975, 315 So.2d 225.

We have considered the other points raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. *Davis v. State,*Fla.App.2d 1973, 277 So.2d 300; *Williams v. State,*Fla.App.2d 1974, 297 So.2d 67.

The judgments are affirmed; but, the causes are remanded for proper sentencing. The action may be taken without the appellant appearing before the court.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3056

To permit a county-operated health insuring organization to qualify as an

organization exempt from certain requirements otherwise applicable to

health insuring organizations under the medicaid program notwithstanding that the organization enrolls medicaid beneficiaries residing in another county.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 1996

Mr. RIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce

A BILL

To permit a county-operated health insuring organization

to qualify as an organization exempt from certain requirements otherwise applicable to health insuring organizations under the medicaid program notwithstanding

that the organization enrolls medicaid beneficiaries residing in another county.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3056 IH

1 SECTION 1. PERMITTING COUNTY-OPERATED HEALTH IN2 SURING ORGANIZATIONS TO ENROLL MEDIC3 AID BENEFICIARIES RESIDING IN ANOTHER

4 COUNTY UNDER MEDICAID WAIVER FOR CER5 TAIN COUNTY-OPERATED HEALTH INSURING

6 ORGANIZATIONS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 9517(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the

8 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

9 (42 U.S.C. 1396b note), as added by section 4734 of the

10 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, is amended

11 by inserting ‘‘or counties’’ after ‘‘county’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

13 subsection (a) shall apply to quarters beginning on or

14 after October 1, 1996.

Æ
#### Carmelo A. INTRAVAIA, Appellant, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL RENTA CAR OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-629.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 7, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:17 PM

To: 'SALES@PRECISIONDRONE.COM'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Schandler, Andrea 

(FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information

February 25, 2015 

Mr. Matt Minnes 

Precision Drone, LLC 

22093 Prairie Baptist Road 

Noblesville, IN 46060 

Dear Mr. Minnes: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-1063). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes and models for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should 

include the following: size, maximum weight (including payload), and aircraft type (i.e. - fixed-wing, 

rotorcraft, lighter-than-air). Please include the aircraft manuals. 

 Provide description of proximity to airports and to populated areas. 

 Your petition references a pre-flight inspection and/or checklist. Describe the process used to determine 

if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS. 

 Describe the process used to document UAS discrepancies and the corrective action taken in the aircraft 

record. Examples of processes include (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain 

its UAS and ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the 

petitioner has elected to maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and 

inspection recommendations. 

 Your petition references the materials listed below, however the materials were not submitted for the 

record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: 

o Precision Drones User Manual 

o Flight Manual 

o Operating Handbook 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by March 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 
2

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.505 Effective date and term of contract. ( a ) *Effective date.* The contract is effective on the date specified in the contract between the MA organization and CMS and, for a contract that provides for coverage under an MSA plan, not earlier than January 1999.
( b ) *Term of contract.* Each contract is for a period of at least 12 months.
( c ) *Renewal of contract.* In accordance with 422.506, contracts are renewed annually only if the MA organization has not provided CMS with a notice of intention not to renew and CMS has not provided the MA organization with a notice of intention not to renew.
( d ) *Renewal of contract contingent on reaching agreement on the bid.* Although an MA organization may be determined qualified to renew its contract under this section, if the organization and CMS cannot reach agreement on the bid under subpart F of this part, no renewal will take place, and the failure to reach an agreement is not subject to the appeals provisions in subpart N of this part.
[63 FR 35099, June 26, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 40328, June 29, 2000. Redesignated at 70 FR 4736, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 4737, Jan. 28, 2005; 72 FR 68723, Dec. 5, 2007]
EXHIBIT 11.1
                           ELEXSYS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
         COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
               (In thousands of dollars, except per share amounts)


                                         Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended

                                          June 28,  June 29,  June 28,  June 29,

                                           1997      1996      1997      1996
                                          -------   -------   -------   -------

Net income                                $ 2,599   $ 1,964   $ 6,006   $ 6,203
                                          =======   =======   =======   =======

Earnings per common share and common
share equivalents:
     Primary                              $  0.26   $  0.20   $  0.61   $  0.65
     Fully diluted                        $  0.26   $  0.20   $  0.61   $  0.65
                                          =======   =======   =======   =======

Weighted average common
and dilutive common equivalent
shares outstanding:
Primary
     Weighted average common
            shares outstanding              9,474     9,189     9,403     9,112
     Common shares relating
            to stock options                  528       430       441       436
                                          -------   -------   -------   -------
     Weighted average common
            and common equivalent
            shares outstanding:            10,002     9,619     9,844     9,548
                                          =======   =======   =======   =======

Fully diluted
     Weighted average common
         shares outstanding:                9,474     9,189     9,403     9,112
      Common shares relating to
         stock options                        528       430       441       436
                                          -------   -------   -------   -------

     Weighted average common and
         common equivalent shares
        outstanding                        10,002     9,619     9,844     9,548
                                          =======   =======   =======   =======





         Refer to Note 4 captioned "Earnings Per Share" of Notes to Consolidated
Financial  Statements in the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended
June 28, 1997 for additional discussion of earnings per share.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Howard L. JACKSON.

No. 62992.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Howard L. Jackson, applying for supervisory writs and judicial review.

Writ denied.
# C_2005229EN.01003201.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/32

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-272/05)

(2005/C 229/68)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme, resident in Auderghem (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 10 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 10 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

Fernandez Tunon

Commission

---