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


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.60
                              AMENDMENT NO. 2003-1

                                     TO THE

             BENCHMARK CORPORATION OF DELAWARE EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


     WHEREAS, Radnor Holdings Corporation (the "Corporation") maintains the
Benchmark Corporation of Delaware Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan") on behalf
of certain of its eligible employees; and

     WHEREAS, the Corporation has the reserved authority to amend the Plan; and

     WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to amend the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

     1.   Section 6(c) of the Plan is amended by adding the following sentence
to the end thereof:

     Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provision of this Plan to the
     contrary, the Committee may, in its sole discretion, extend the term of any
     option up to an additional three (3) years from the date the Option was set
     to expire.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2003-1 has been executed as of this
29th day of October, 2003.

ATTEST:                                 RADNOR HOLDINGS CORPORATION


/s/ Caroline J. Williamson              By: /s/ John P. McKelvey
--------------------------                 -------------------------------------
                                        Title: Sr. V.P. Human Resources and
                                              ----------------------------------
                                               Administration
                                              ----------------------------------


PH2\1145976.1
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4281 Refunding of loans in default.

Upon receiving a notice of default the Secretary may at any time prior to the termination of the borrower's interest in the property require the holder upon penalty of otherwise losing the guaranty to transfer and assign the loan and the security therefor to the Secretary or to another designated by him or her upon receipt of payment of the balance of the indebtedness remaining unpaid to the date of such assignment. Such assignment may be made without recourse but the transferor shall not thereby be relieved from the provisions of § 36.4286.

[36 FR 1253, Jan. 27, 1971, as amended at 55 FR 37474, Sept. 12, 1990]
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.375 Determination of inactivity (complete arrest) in tuberculosis. ( a ) *Pulmonary tuberculosis.* A veteran shown to have had pulmonary tuberculosis will be held to have reached a condition of “complete arrest” when a diagnosis of inactive is made.
( b ) *Nonpulmonary disease.* Determination of complete arrest of nonpulmonary tuberculosis requires absence of evidence of activity for 6 months. If there are two or more foci of such tuberculosis, one of which is active, the condition will not be considered to be inactive until the tuberculous process has reached arrest in its entirety.
( c ) *Arrest following surgery.* Where there has been surgical excision of the lesion or organ, the date of complete arrest will be the date of discharge from the hospital, or 6 months from the date of excision, whichever is later.
[33 FR 16275, Nov. 6, 1968, as amended at 43 FR 45348, Oct. 2, 1978]
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4526 Issuance of fund reservation commitments. ( a ) Any builder or sponsor proposing to construct one or more dwellings in an area designated as eligible for direct loans may apply for a commitment for the reservation of direct loan funds to be used for the making of loans to eligible veterans for the purchase or construction of such dwellings. Such commitment may be issued on such conditions as the Department of Veterans Affairs determines to be proper in the particular case and will be valid for a period of 3 months; *Provided,* That the Department of Veterans Affairs may, for good and sufficient reasons, extend the period of the commitment. No commitment shall be issued unless the builder or sponsor shall have paid an amount equivalent to 2 percent of the funds being reserved, which amount shall be nonrefundable. The commitment shall be nontransferable except with the written approval of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
( b ) Notwithstanding that direct loan funds may be available for reservation when issuance of a reservation commitment is requested by a builder or sponsor, the Department of Veterans Affairs may withhold issuance of such commitment in any case in which it determines that the experience or technical qualifications of the builder in respect to home construction are not acceptable, or that other factors bearing on the likelihood of the success of the proposed project are such as to justify withholding issuance of a fund reservation commitment.
[23 FR 2340, Apr. 10, 1958]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2080 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2080

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to conform the District 
 charter to revisions made by the Council of the District of Columbia 
                     relating to public education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2007

    Ms. Norton (for herself and Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia) (both by 
  request): introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to conform the District 
 charter to revisions made by the Council of the District of Columbia 
                     relating to public education.

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

SECTION 1. CONFORMING DISTRICT CHARTER TO COUNCIL AMENDMENTS RELATING 
              TO PUBLIC EDUCATION.

    (a) In General.--The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is 
amended--
            (1) by striking section 452 (sec. 1--204.52, D.C. Official 
        Code); and
            (2) by striking section 495 (sec. 1--204.95, D.C. Official 
        Code).
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is 
amended by striking the item relating to section 452 and the item 
relating to section 495.
                                 <all>
```
#### Chane Hurwitz, Respondent, *v.*The Hamburg-American Packet Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Julius J. Frank, for appellant;

Mashbir .& Cukor, for respondent.

*815
      *Per Curiam.*

It was error for the trial justice to refuse the defendant’s seventh request to charge. It was, no doubt, the duty of the plaintiff to demand from the defendant her baggage within a reasonable time after her arrival; besides, it was error to allow , testimony concerning the value of the hooks bought by plaintiff for her husband out of money sent her by him for the purchase of such hooks.

They certainly constituted no part of her baggage, and she had no right to recover, in this action, their value.

Judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Eitzsimons, Oh. J., and O’Dwyer, J.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appel- . lant tó abide event.
## Statement of Required sUAS Description Items

Full description of the sUA provided by the builder and applicant.

sUA Required Description Items

1. Full Legal Name of UA Manufacturer /builder : Gryphon Dynamics /Visionary Perspectives LLC

2. sUA Model Designation: GD

- X8

3. sUA Serial Number: BH001

4. Class: Rotorcraft

5. sUA Maximum Takeoff Weight: 30 Lbs

, max payload 12lbs.

6. Category: Land

7. Name of Engine Manufacturer: KDE DIRECT

8. Engine Model Designation: KDE 4014XF

- 380s

9. Engine Serial

- Numbers: none

10. Number of Engines: 8 (EIGHT)

11. Engine Power Output: 4310 g Max Thrust

12. Engine Type: Electric Prop



### THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER CERTIFIES

1 I purchased the sUA described above as a new off

- the

- shelf item on 02/17/2014 from

GRYPHON DYNAMICS

2

3 To the best of the undersigned owner's knowledge, the information provided above is correct,

the described UA is not registered in another country, and the undersigned is the

aircraft's rightful owner.

Name(s) of Owner(s): BRYAN HARVEY FILMS INC.

Signat ure(s): ___________________________________

Title of Signers owner

Address: 309 W SOUNDSIDE RD, NAGS HEAD, NC 27959

Telephone: 202

- 365

- 4447

NOTARY PUBLIC

State: _______________ County: ______________

Country: ______________________

Subscribed and sworn before me this: ______ day of: __________, ______

Signature: ___________________________________

(Signature of individual authorized under local law to administer oaths)

My Commission Expires: ___________________

(Seal as required by State or local law.)
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.570 Disenrollment protections. ( a ) The State must give enrollees reasonable notice of and an opportunity to pay past due premiums, copayments, coinsurance, deductibles or similar fees prior to disenrollment.
( b ) The disenrollment process must afford the enrollee an opportunity to show that the enrollee's household income has declined prior to disenrollment for non payment of cost-sharing charges, and in the event that such a showing indicates that the enrollee may have become eligible for Medicaid or for a lower level of cost sharing, the State must facilitate enrolling the child in Medicaid or adjust the child's cost-sharing category as appropriate.
( c ) The State must ensure that disenrollment policies, such as policies related to non-payment of premiums, do not present barriers to the timely determination of eligibility and enrollment in coverage of an eligible child in the appropriate insurance affordability program. A State may not— ( 1 ) Impose a specified period of time that a CHIP eligible targeted low-income child or targeted low-income pregnant woman who has an unpaid premium or enrollment fee will not be permitted to reenroll for coverage in CHIP.
( 2 ) Require the collection of past due premiums or enrollment fees as a condition of eligibility for reenrollment if an individual was terminated for failure to pay premiums.
( d ) The State must provide the enrollee with an opportunity for an impartial review to address disenrollment from the program in accordance with § 457.1130(a)(3).
[66 FR 2681, Jan. 11, 2001, as amended at 78 FR 42312, July 15, 2013; 89 FR 22876, Apr. 2, 2024]
#### John Gallagher, an Infant, by Anthony Gallagher, his Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiff, *v.*James F. Dolan, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

April, 1899.)

Negligence — Execution against the person.

An execution against the person issued under a judgment rendered In an action based upon negligence will not be set aside merely because the negligence consisted in an omission rather than in a wilful wrong, as such a distinction is not recognized.

Motion to set aside an execution against the person.

Hamilton *&*Grilling, for motion.

Louis Steckler, opposed.

Giegerich, J.

The defendant being held under a body execution, issued upon a judgment in an action for negligence, this motion is made to set it aside, upon the ground that the negligence in suit consisted of an omission rather than a willful wrong, and the case^f Lasche v. Dearing, 23 Misc. Rep. 722, is cited as authority for the distinction. Examination of the case referred to shows that the reasoning adopted would oppose the issuance of an execution against the person in any case where the cause of action is for negligence, as distinguished from an unlawful trespass against the person, and-this is contrary to controlling authority. Ritterma’ *123v. Ropes, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 236, and cases cited; Miller v. Woodhead, 52 Hun, 127.

Motion denied, with $10 costs-
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
**AIJSTI N** 

mnorabki ix.f~.crirrin county Attorney, Yourlgcounty Grahaa , Teraa
Dear kl. GriPfin!:

artials 146% provlaoo for **ths** hooplag of.0 

### roaewa by the inopoator or 

### mgistrate enQ prwlQ00 WSth* for a ponolty ior failu3-s M oa porforrr.Her. E. RI. Griffin, .April 6, 1939, Page 2 

### 381

Artiole **7005, Revised**  Civil **Statutes, am** 

### amended **by the**  **45th** Laglslature 1~1937, provfdes that the County of Young;is "hereby exempted frown all laws regulating the irqmztion of hides and anlmtils." (lC4phnsisadded)

kfter a careful study 

### 0r tbese statutes, it Is our opinion that titlcle 7005, hereinabove rererrsd to, suspends **the operation**  of krtlole 1455 as pertlnsnt to Youq~Oounty, and further that said arttfole suspends that portion of nrtlole 1452 which provides, ** ? + or shall rail to have the hide and ears of auah animal or animals laspeotsd by the inspector or soam magistrate withlnkmnty days after euoh animal is slaughtered," but that the portfan ot Article 1452 whloh provides “Every person who ahall oarry on the tuslne8e of **butoha or**  slaughterer or animal@ aad 8hdi iail t0 &Wp a -0~~4 ti a **bOOk k.Opt** **rm** th0 **pw#,** ai all esttb **porobaaed md**  sluq#Sorod **by him,**  **Wmtlmr** 

### dth & 

### 4esarlptlon of 

### eaoh raiul, iaolrrdiae 

### brunI,W, 

### eolor,nl6Wand from~apurohmo4,mdthm68~0~ ~~n++*~~boiirranOtleBs~t~~~~ than tm 

### hundred

douar8,

### "lestillinfuuroreoud*met in a0

## ru esYo sls*wc of Countyf6 oon0urrQ, aaa ,a batobr or 8lllYamgoalst~irstlllnqPind un6a the .&nf

to koopa roead as honia&0ve nt ou8,.ln R&l CQaoArtlolelW8.



## a8ta hng Oody, e.u4W&o to swpod a8toYe **Ceunty** that portion or ArtJ0i0.~4&8 dri0h n6d8 -'ofahdu 

### rti to 

### havathetido uxdoarmoi sutirnirrl or animal8lnapeoted **by tbn**  

### lnmpaotor or 

### 8~ magistrate

within60 day8 after 

### euoh animalie olataghtaod."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6772]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects in the exhibition: “Gabriel Orozco,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, N.Y., from on or about December 13, 2009, until on or about March 1, 2010, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, 2200 C Street, NW., Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: September 21, 2009.

Maura M. Pally,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-23322 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### § 21.7307 Examination of records.

In administering benefits payable under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30, VA will apply the provisions of § 21.4209.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034, 3690)

[62 FR 55761, Oct. 28, 1997]
42093.

#### GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION v. BUCHANAN.

Submitted June 8, 1966

Decided June 16, 1966.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Claude T. Buchanan filed his application for workmen’s compensation based upon injury allegedly sustained while employed by the Georgia Pacific Corporation. The deputy director hearing the complaint found for claimant, as did a majority of the full board. Thereafter, on appeal the superior court affirmed the award of the full board and the employer complains that the claimant failed to give timely notice of a compensable accident; that there was no evidence of an accident while in the regular course of employment, and that the disability complained of was not proximately caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. *Held:*

1. “The only ground upon which the employer assigns error is that the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of the board and award of compensation” *(U. S. Cas. Co. v. Young,*104 Ga. App. 373, 374 (121 SE2d 680)), and the only question presented is whether the record .contains any competent evidence to support the award.

2. While in the present case the employer seeks to attack the award on four grounds, such attack raises the sole question of whether the award was supported by any competent evidence.

3. The record discloses that the claimant left his job to visit a doctor because of pain and that the employer had knowledge of such facts. Under decisions exemplified by *Davison-Paxon Co. v. Ford,*88 Ga. App. 890, 891 (78 SE2d 257), such notice was sufficient to put the employer on inquiry as to the circumstances surrounding such disability.

4. The evidence was also sufficient to support the finding that the claimant suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and was suffering a total disability therefrom.

5. The trial court did not err in affirming the award of the full board of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*

*845
      *John G. Davis,*for appellant.

*V. D. Stockton, James V. Pleasants,*for appellee.
###### 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.

#### § 11.53 Proposed findings and conclusions; post-hearing memorandum.

(a) Except in cases in which the respondent has failed to answer the complaint or the amended complaint, or appear at a hearing, the hearing officer, prior to making an initial decision, shall afford the parties a reasonable opportunity to submit proposed findings and conclusions and a post-hearing memorandum in support of the proposed findings and conclusions.

(b) The OED Director shall serve and file a post-hearing memorandum within 30 days after the hearing transcript has been filed with the hearing officer. The respondent shall have 30 days after service of the OED Director's post-hearing memorandum to file a responsive post-hearing memorandum. The OED Director may file a reply memorandum within 21 days after service of any responsive post-hearing memorandum.

(c) The respondent shall serve and file a post-hearing memorandum with respect to any asserted affirmative defenses, or other matters for which the respondent bears the burden of proof, within 30 days after the hearing transcript has been filed with the hearing officer. The OED Director shall have 30 days after service of the respondent's post-hearing memorandum to file a responsive post-hearing memorandum. The respondent may file a reply memorandum within 21 days after service of any responsive post-hearing memorandum.

(d) The OED Director's and the respondent's responsive post-hearing memoranda shall be limited to 50 pages, 12-point font, double-spacing, and one-inch margins, and the reply memoranda shall be limited to 25 pages, 12-point font, double-spacing, and one-inch margins, unless otherwise ordered by the hearing officer.

(e) The hearing officer may extend the time for filing a post-hearing memorandum and may also increase the page limits, for good cause shown.

[86 FR 28463, May 26, 2021]