alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Regina CANTOR, Appellant, v. Herbert M. CANTOR, Appellee.

No. 74-533.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 24, 1975.

*597Waldense D. Malouf, Clearwater, for appellant.

Richard M. Robbins, Clearwater, for ap-pellee.

J. E. Satterfield of The Legal Aid Society, Clearwater, as amicus curiae.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant filed a Petition for Modification of Final Judgment entered in a dissolution of marriage suit, which petition was denied by the lower court on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to grant relief sought by the petition.

The order denying appellant’s Petition for Modification of Final Judgment is the subject of this interlocutory appeal.

The sole question involved is whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s petition.

The final judgment provided:

> . The husband shall pay to the wife as temporary rehabilitative alimony the sum of $300.00 per month for six (6) months commencing with the 15th day of August, 1973, and continuing for the said period of six (6) months. The said $300.00 monthly payment shall be payable as follows: $150.00 shall be payable on the first of each of the six months and $150.00 shall be payable on the fifteenth day of each of the six months; provided, however, said payments, as stated, shall commence on the 15th day of August, 1973.

The final judgment is unique in that it provides for “temporary rehabilitative alimony.” We can see no legal distinction between rehabilitative alimony and “temporary” rehabilitative alimony awarded in a final judgment.

The trial court was of the opinion that because the word “temporary” preceded the words “rehabilitative alimony” that it was without jurisdiction to entertain the Petition for Modification. With this we disagree.

Florida Statutes, § 61.14, provides as follows :

*Modification of alimony judgments; agreements,*etc.—

> (1) * * * [Wjhen a party is required by court order to make *any payments,*and the circumstances or the financial ability of either party has changed * * *, *the court has jurisdiction*to make orders as equity requires, * * *. [emphasis ours]

The Petition for Modification was filed prior to the expiration of the six months period of rehabilitative alimony provided for in the final judgment. The final judgment also provided that the court retain jurisdiction to enter such further orders necessary to enforce the provisions of this judgment. The appellee contends that the court having retained jurisdiction only to enforce the provisions of the judgment, does not have jurisdiction to modify such judgment as to rehabilitative alimony.

As we view Florida Stat. 61.14, the statute itself confers upon the court jurisdiction to modify the provisions of the final judgment as to rehabilitative or permanent alimony under the appropriate circumstances. Kosch v. Kosch, Fla. 1959, 113 So.2d 547.

For the foregoing reasons, the order appealed is reversed'and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

McNULTY, C. J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.
```

[114th Congress Public Law 193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 673]]

Public Law 114-193
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  525 N Broadway in Aurora, Illinois, as the ``Kenneth M. Christy Post 
       Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 15, 2016 -  [H.R. 4960]>> 

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

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 525 N Broadway in Aurora, Illinois, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Kenneth M. Christy Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kenneth M. 
Christy Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 15, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4960:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            June 21, considered and passed House.
            July 7, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2006036EN.01002101.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in N.V. City Motors Groep v N.V. Citroën Belux

(Case C-421/05)

(2006/C 36/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Commercial Court, Brussels) of 21 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between N.V. City Motors Groep and N.V. Citroën Belux on the following question:

Is Article 3(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (1) of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicles sector to be interpreted as precluding an express termination provision in a motor vehicle concession agreement that is intended to benefit from the exemption?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 203, p. 30.

1

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ARLOS AR

M ANDO ORTEGA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M ARK RITC H IE, M .D.; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17127 D.C . No. 4:09-c v-05527-SB A M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Sa undra B . Arm strong, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C arlos Arm an d o Orte ga

a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion for fa i lure to e xha ust his a va ila ble a dm inistra

tive re m e die s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo le g a l rulings on the e xha u s tion of a dm inistra

t ive re m e die s. Albino 

# FIL ED FEB 2 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba n c ). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t Orte ga fa ile d to e xha

ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s be c a

use Orte ga did not a

ppe a l the re le va

nt grie va nc e de c isions to the

fina l le ve l of re vie w be fore pre se nting his c l a im s to thedistric t c ourt. Se eW

oodford v . N

go , 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding tha t “p rope r e xha ustion”is m andatory

and re quire s a dhe re nc e to a dm inistra tive proc e dura l rule s). B e c a

use we a ffirm

on the ba sis of Orte g a ’ s fa ilure to e xha ust, we do not a ddre s s Orte ga ’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning them e rits of his c la im s. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r the distric t c ourt’ s post-judgme nt orde r de ny ing Orte ga ’ s m otion for re c onside ration be c a use Orte ga

fa ile d to filea

ne w or am e nde d notic e of a

ppe a l from

tha t orde r . Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a)(4)(B )(ii). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 7 1 2 7 2
No. 91-165 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1991

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,-vsWESTLEY F. DEITCHLER, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Rosebud, The Honorable Joe L. Hegel, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Westley F. D For Respondent:

Filed: itch1 r, Pr Se, De 

### r Lodg Montana

Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General; George Schunk, Assistant Atty. General, Helena, Montana John S. Forsythe, County Attorney, Forsyth, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 10, 1991 Decided: November 5, 1991Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. Westley Floyd Deitchler appeals the judgment of the District Court for the Sixteenth Judicial District, Rosebud County, which found him guilty of twelve misdemeanor offenses including driving without a valid driver's license, operating a vehicle with expired registration, and failure to carry proof of liability insurance. We affirm. The appellant challenges the constitutionality of state statutes requiring citizens to have a valid driver's license, § 61- 5
-102,MCA; current car registration,5 61

-3

-301,MCA; and proof of liability insurance, 5 61

-6

-301,MCA. The State responds that this Court has addressed and settled these issues. We agree. The appellant himself previously challenged the State's authority to require drivers' licenses. We rejected the constitutional arguments on that issue in State v. Deitchler

(1982), 201 Mont. 70, 651 P.2d 1020. Subsequently, we quoted Deitchler with approval in a decision upholding the constitutionality of State statutes requiring drivers to carry drivers' licenses,motor vehicle registration and proofs of vehicle insurance. City of Billings v. Skurdal (1986), 224 Mont. 84, 730 P.2d 371. When the appellant Skurdal brought a second appeal to this Court, we again upheld the constitutionality of drivers' license requirements. State v. Skurdal (1988), 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304. These issues are now well settled in Montana. We will not address them again in this case. In addition, we do not address 2the appellant's arguments regarding the federal monetary system. Those arguments have no relevance to the misdemeanor convictions from which Deitchler appeals. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by 

### its filing as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. Affinned.

We concur:

3November 5, 1991 CERTIFICATE

### OFSERVICE 

### I hereby certifythat thefollowingorder was sent by United Statesmail, prepaid, to the followingnamed: Westley

### F. Deitchler 700ConleyLake Rd. DeerLodge,MT 59722
Hon. MarcRacicot, Attorney General Helena,MT 59620 John 

### S.Forsythe CountyAttorney P.O. Box 69 Forsyth,MT 59321 EDSMITH CLERKOF

### THESUPREME COURT 

# sTAe
BY. Deputy
#### § 412.161 Applicability of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program.

The Hospital VBP Program applies to hospitals, as that term is defined in § 412.160.

[79 FR 50355, Aug. 22, 2014]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           11006
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     115024
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           16583
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             16704
<LOANS>                                         220188
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  375871
<DEPOSITS>                                      268817
<SHORT-TERM>                                     45466
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1776
<LONG-TERM>                                      29111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1321
<OTHER-SE>                                       29380
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  375871
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  14261
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 6790
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 21051
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                7454
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10329
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            10722
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      555
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 586
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   6131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6009
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        4408
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4408
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.40
<LOANS-NON>                                       1175
<LOANS-PAST>                                        11
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    250
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3153
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       50
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3671
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              3671
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           2609
        

</TABLE>
V

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3284

For the relief of Nancy B. Wilson.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 22, 1996

Mr. LONGLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Nancy B. Wilson.

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

3 SECTION 1. ENTITLEMENT TO WIDOW’S INSURANCE BENE4 FITS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of determining the

6 eligibility of Nancy B. Wilson (social security number

7 034–16–2291) to widow’s insurance benefits under section

8 202(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)),

9 Nancy B. Wilson shall be deemed to have been married

10 to Alphonse M. Wilson (social security number 271–18–

11 9548) for a period of not less than 9 months immediately

12 prior to the day on which Alphonse M. Wilson died.
2

•HR 3284 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) takes effect

2 on March 21, 1991.

3 (c) PAYMENT.—Any benefits to which Nancy B. Wil4 son is entitled for the period prior to the date of the enact5 ment of this Act shall be paid to her in a lump sum.

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

§ 422.506 Nonrenewal of contract. ( a ) *Nonrenewal by an MA organization.* ( 1 ) An MA organization may elect not to renew its contract with CMS as of the end of the term of the contract for any reason provided it meets the timeframes for doing so set forth in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
( 2 ) If an MA organization does not intend to renew its contract, it must notify— ( i ) CMS in writing, by the first Monday in June of the year in which the contract would end;
( ii ) Each Medicare enrollee by mail at least 90 calendar days before the date on which the nonrenewal is effective. The MA organization must also provide information about alternative enrollment options by doing one or more of the following: ( A ) Provide a CMS approved written description of alternative MA plan, MA-PD plan, and PDP options available for obtaining qualified Medicare services within the beneficiaries' region.
( B ) Place outbound calls to all affected enrollees to ensure beneficiaries know who to contact to learn about their enrollment options.
( 3 ) If an MA organization does not renew a contract under paragraph (a) of this section, CMS may deny an application for a new contract or a service area expansion from the MA organization for 2 years unless there are circumstances that warrant special consideration, as determined by CMS. This prohibition may apply regardless of the product type, contract type or service area of the previous contract.
( 4 ) During the same 2-year period as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, CMS will not contract with an organization whose covered persons also served as covered persons for the non-renewing sponsor. A “covered person” as used in this paragraph means one of the following: ( i ) All owners of nonrenewed or terminated organizations who are natural persons, other than shareholders who have an ownership interest of less than 5 percent.
( ii ) An owner in whole or part interest in any mortgage, deed of trust, note or other obligation secured (in whole or in part) by the organization, or any of the property or assets thereof, which whole or part interest is equal to or exceeds 5 percent of the total property, and assets of the organization.
( iii ) A member of the board of directors or board of trustees of the entity, if the organization is organized as a corporation.
( b ) [Reserved]
[63 FR 35099, June 26, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 40328, June 29, 2000; 67 FR 13289, Mar. 22, 2002; 70 FR 4737, Jan. 28, 2005; 72 FR 68723, Dec. 5, 2007; 74 FR 1542, Jan. 12, 2009; 75 FR 19811, Apr. 15, 2010; 76 FR 21568, Apr. 15, 2011; 80 FR 7961, Feb. 12, 2015; 83 FR 16734, Apr. 16, 2018]
Exhibit 10.20


 


(Form of First Amendment to Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement with
all non-management directors)


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT


 


This
First Amendment to Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (“Amendment”)
is made and entered into by and among                                       (“Grantee”)
and Texas Roadhouse, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).


 


Grantee
and the Company are sometimes referred to collectively in this Amendment as the
“Parties.”


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certain Restricted
Stock Unit Award dated on or about                                
(the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to amend the Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.                                       Capitalized terms not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.


 


2.                                       Paragraph 6 of Article II
of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:


 


6.                                       Assumption or
Substitution on Change in Control.  Upon a Corporate Transaction that is a change
in ownership under Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-3(i)(5)(v) (generally,
a person or group acquires more than 50% of the total fair market value or
voting power of stock) or that is a change in ownership of assets under Section 1.409A3(i)(5)(vii) (generally,
a sale of 40% or more of assets), the Award shall become 100% immediately
vested 5 days prior to the Corporate Transaction, and the Company may, in its
discretion, pay the Restricted Stock Units at that time in cash rather than
issuing Shares to Grantee.  Such cash
payment shall be equal to the fair value of the Shares on the date they would
otherwise be issued in accordance with the preceding sentence, as reflected by
the transaction giving rise to a Corporate Transaction, or if such transaction
is not a sale of Shares, fair value as determined in good faith by the Company.


 


3.                                       Except as
expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


[Signature page follows.]


 


1

















 


(Form of First Amendment to Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement with
all non-management directors)


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally
bound thereby, Grantee and the Company have executed the foregoing Amendment on
the dates set forth below.


 


 


	
   

  	
  TEXAS ROADHOUSE, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Scott M. Colosi

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  Chief Financial Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  



 


2
V

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3371

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel WHITE WING.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 30, 1996

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

WHITE WING.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106

6 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap8 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise
2

•HR 3371 IH

1 trade for the vessel WHITE WING (United States official

2 number 283818).

Æ