alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                            AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED
                                  AND RESTATED
                             ALAMOSA HOLDINGS, INC.
                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


     Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 6 of the Amended and Restated Alamosa
Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan are hereby deleted and replaced in
their entirety as follows:

          "b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent necessary to comply
          with Section 423(b)(8) of the Code and Section 3b hereof, a
          Participant's payroll deductions may be decreased to 0% at any time
          during a Purchase Period. Payroll deductions shall automatically
          recommence at the rate provided in such Participant's subscription
          agreement (prior to the reduction) at the start of the first Purchase
          Period commencing in the following calendar year.

          c. A Participant may withdraw from the Plan as provided in Section 9,
          which will terminate his or her payroll deductions for the Purchase
          Period in which such withdrawal occurs. A Participant may increase or
          decrease the rate (0-10%) of his or her payroll deductions during an
          Offering Period by completing and filing with the Employer a new
          subscription agreement authorizing a change in payroll deduction rate.
          The Committee may, in its discretion, limit the number of rate changes
          by a Participant during an Offering Period. A change in rate shall be
          effective as of the next payroll period following the date of filing
          of the new subscription agreement. If a Participant's payroll
          deduction rate at the end of the Offering Period is 0%, such
          Participant shall be required to increase the payroll deduction rate
          to participate in any subsequent Offering Period."


                                        1
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David BROWN, Jr.

No. 63721.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 26, 1979.

In re David Brown, Jr. applying for writ of certiorari, review and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
SERVED: AUGUST 12, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

COLGAN AIR, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

'DMS NO. FAA-2009-0582 

NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

The Prehearing Telephone Conference previously noticed for September 13, 2010, is 

hereby re-scheduled for September 22, 2010, at 3 p.m.. Eastern Time. 

All parties should be prepared to discuss all issues and facts at issue. All documents that 

have been exchanged and that have not already been provided to the Judge should be furnished 

to him by September 7, 2010. 

Pursuant to Section 556 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(8), each 

party shall be represented by someone who has authority to negotiate concerning resolution of all 

issues in controversy. 

SO ORDERED. 

:i€ A. Yoder y 

Chief Administrative Lawy 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09EA0018 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVJLCEPST 

OWGINAL iciN ^ COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Mark A. Dombroff, Respondent's Counsel 

DOMBROFF GILMORE JAQUES 8c FRENCH, P.C. 

1676 International Drive - Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8700 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

Christian L. Lewerenz, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, EAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3273 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following {address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Aventt0, SJW., Wilbur Wright Building - Sixite 2Wl'OdO, 

Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clafk^ AGC-430. 

- 2-
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 329/2005

of 25 February 2005         

fixing certain indicative quantities and individual ceilings for the issue of licences for the import of bananas into the Community in the second quarter of 2005 under tariff quotas A/B and C

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The indicative quantity referred to in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 for the issue of import licences for bananas under the tariff quotas provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 is hereby fixed, for the second quarter of 2005, at:

Article 2

For the second quarter of 2005, the maximum authorised quantity referred to in Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 896/2001, for licence applications for the import of bananas under the tariff quotas provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 is hereby fixed at:

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 February 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

(2)OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 838/2004 (OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 52).

(3)OJ L 328, 30.10.2004, p. 50.

----
#### DIRECT MAIL SPECIALIST, INC. v. LYKES-YOUNGSTOWN COMPUTER SERVICES CORP.

No. 47896.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 17, 1975.

Cumbest & Cumbest, John Hunter, Pas-cagoula, for appellant.

Colingo & Blackwell, Pascagoula, for ap-pellee.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and SMITH and SUGG, JJ.

Affirmed.
§ 495.212 Limitation on review. ( a ) There is no administrative or judicial review under section 1869 or 1878 of the Act, or otherwise of the methodology and standards for determining payment amounts and payment adjustments under the MA EHR EP incentive program. This includes provisions related to duplication of payment avoidance and rules developed related to the fixed schedule for application of limitation on incentive payments for all qualifying MA EPs related to a specific qualifying MA organization. It also includes the methodology and standards developed for determining qualifying MA EPs and the methodology and standards for determining a meaningful EHR user, including the means of demonstrating meaningful use and the selection of measures.
( b ) There is no administrative or judicial review under sections 1869 or 1878 of the Act, or otherwise, of the methodology and standards for determining payment amounts and payment adjustments under the MA EHR hospital incentive program. This includes provisions related to duplication of payment avoidance. It also includes the methodology and standards developed for determining qualifying MA-affiliated eligible hospitals and the methodology and standards for determining a meaningful EHR user, including the means of demonstrating meaningful use and the selection of measures.
#### § 11.117 Missing applications.

Where the records of the Department of Veterans Affairs show that an application, disclosing an intention to claim the benefits of this Act, has been filed and the application cannot be found, such application shall be presumed, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, to have been valid when originally filed. The determination of the correctness of this assumption shall be made by the Manager, Veterans Benefits Office, Washington, DC, or his designee.

[19 FR 5087, Aug. 12, 1954]
**KFS** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0541 STATE OF MONTANA ,

P la intiff and Appell ee , v. BEAU AVIDIYA ,

Defendant and Appell an

t . **GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including August 19 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 11 2024

07/11/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0541
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.79 [Reserved]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Amendment to Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc Equity Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Amendments to Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. 
  
 Equity Compensation Plan (effective July 16, 2003) 
  
 Section 5(f) of the Plan is amended and restated as follows: 
  
 “(f) Manner of Exercise. A Grantee may exercise a Stock Option which has become exercisable, in whole or in part, by delivering a duly
completed notice of exercise to the Secretary of the Company, or such other representative of the Company as the Secretary shall appoint, specifying the number of shares as to which the Stock Option may be exercised and providing payment of such
option price in accordance with Subsection (h) below. Such notice may instruct the Company to deliver shares of the Common Stock to be issued upon payment of the option price to any registered broker or dealer designated by Grantee (“Designated
Broker”) in lieu of delivery to the Grantee. Such instructions must designate the account into which the shares are to be deposited. The Grantee may tender notice of exercise, which has been properly executed by the Grantee and the
aforementioned delivery instructions to any Designated Broker.” 
  
 Section 5(h) of the Plan is amended and restated as follows: 
  
 “(h) Satisfaction of Option Price. The Grantee shall pay the option price for a Stock Option as specified by the Committee (w) in cash, (x) with the approval of the Committee, by delivering shares of Common Stock owned by the
Grantee (including Common Stock acquired in connection with the exercise of a Stock Option, subject to such restrictions as the Committee deems appropriate) and having a Fair Market Value on the date of exercise equal to the option price, (y) by
delivery to the Company or its designated agent of an executed irrevocable option exercise form together with irrevocable instructions to a broker-dealer to sell a sufficient portion of the shares and deliver the sale proceeds directly to the
Company to pay the exercise price, or (z) by such other method as the Committee may approve. Shares of Common Stock used to exercise a Stock Option shall have been held by the Grantee for the requisite period of time to avoid adverse accounting
consequences to the Company with respect to the Stock Option. The Grantee shall pay the option price and the amount of any withholding tax due, if any, at the time of payment of the option price. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the exercise price,
plus any required federal income tax or other withholding amount, may be paid when the shares underlying the option are issued, or in such other manner as the Board of Directors or a committee of the Board may approve.”
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Michael L. DeMarco, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 11, 2008       /s/ Michael L. DeMarco  Michael L. DeMarco,  Chief Financial Officer  
25
#### § 10.34 Proof of age of dependent mother or father.

The mother or father of a veteran to be entitled to the presumption of dependency within the meaning of section 602(c) or section 312(c) of the Act, as amended, shall be required to submit proof of age in accordance with the requirements as set forth in regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 41.205 Settlement agreements.

(a) *Constructive notice; time for filing.* Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 135(c), an agreement or understanding, including collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of an interference must be filed prior to the termination of the interference between the parties to the agreement. After a final decision is entered by the Board, an interference is considered terminated when no appeal (35 U.S.C. 141) or other review (35 U.S.C. 146) has been or can be taken or had. If an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (under 35 U.S.C. 141) or a civil action (under 35 U.S.C. 146) has been filed the interference is considered terminated when the appeal or civil action is terminated. A civil action is terminated when the time to appeal the judgment expires. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, whether from a decision of the Board or a judgment in a civil action, is terminated when the mandate is issued by the Court.

(b) *Untimely filing.* The Chief Administrative Patent Judge may permit the filing of an agreement under paragraph (a) of this section up to six months after termination upon petition and a showing of good cause for the failure to file prior to termination.

(c) *Request to keep separate.* Any party to an agreement under paragraph (a) of this section may request that the agreement be kept separate from the interference file. The request must be filed with or promptly after the agreement is filed.

(d) *Access to agreement.* Any person, other than a representative of a Government agency, may have access to an agreement kept separate under paragraph (c) of this section only upon petition and on a showing of good cause. The agreement will be available to Government agencies on written request.
#### Matter of Mechanic's Lien against 478 Cherry Street, New York City.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

June, 1899.)

Mechanic’s lien If the owner discharges it by a deposit, he cannot thereafter substitute a bond.

Where the owner of the fee discharges a mechanic’s lien, which has been filed against his property, by depositing money in court under chapter 418 of the Laws of 1897, the court is without jurisdiction to permit him subsequently to withdraw the money and substitute therefor a bond.

Motion to substitute a bond for money already paid into court for the discharge of a mechanic’s lien. The owner of the premises discharged the lien by depositing money in court. Subsequently he desired to use his money, and moved for leave to give a bond and take back Ms deposit.

C. H. Fisher, for motion.

E. C. Baldwin, opposed.

Gildersleeve, J.

The owner of ^ the property discharged a mechanic’s lien by the payment of money into court, in accordance with the provisions of the Lien Law (chap. 418, Laws of 1897).

He Mow. asks leave to substitute a bond in place of the money. The statute contains no provision for such a proceeding, and I am unable to find any precedent therefor. It seems to me that the court is without jurisdiction to -make the order asked for.

Motion denied. Ro costs.
#### § 82.1 What is the purpose of this part?

The purpose of this part is to provide methods for determining a reasonable estimate of the radiation dose received by a covered employee with cancer under EEOICPA, through the completion of a dose reconstruction. These methods will be applied by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in a dose reconstruction program serving claimants under EEOICPA, as identified under § 82.0.
# C_2006096EN.01000802.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/8

---

Action brought on 2 March 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-123/06)

(2006/C 96/15)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 March 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dominique Maidani and Georgios Zavvos, Legal Advisers in its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to comply with Directive 2001/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to comply with Directive 2001/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the case in point, Article 34 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 provides that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 5 May 2004 at the latest and are immediately to inform the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ No L 125, 5.5.2001, p. 15.

1

---