alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.49


 


EMPLOYEE
RELOCATION REPAYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


 


According to NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS policy, I am
eligible to receive reimbursement for specified relocation expenses.  Before receiving any reimbursements and/or
advances, I agree to and understand the following:


 


In the event that I cease to be employed by
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS, or any of its affiliated companies, within twelve (12)
months of the date a relocation expense was incurred on my behalf, for reasons
other than death, disability or a decision by NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS that my
services are no longer required, I agree to reimburse NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS, or
any of its affiliated companies, all relocation expenses paid by NEKTAR
THERAPEUTICS on the effective date of my termination according to the following
scale:


 


 


Length of Service from Date Relocation Expense Was
Incurred


	
  Length of
  Services

  	
   

  	
  Amount

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9 months or less

  	
   

  	
  100

  	
  %

  
	
  9-10 months

  	
   

  	
  75

  	
  %

  
	
  10-11 months

  	
   

  	
  50

  	
  %

  
	
  11-12 months

  	
   

  	
  25

  	
  %

  



 


 


 


	
  /s/ Ajay Bansal

  	
  4/2/03

  
	
  Signed

  	
  Date

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Ajay Bansal

  
	
  Print Name
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements No. 333-122809 on Form S-8 andNos. 333-127759 and 333-127760 on Form S-3 of FairPointCommunications, Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2007 relatingto the financial statements of Orange County-Poughkeepsie Limited Partnershipas of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and for each of the three years in theperiod ended December 31, 2006 (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding affiliate revenues),appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/Aof FairPoint Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2006.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, GeorgiaMay 29, 2007

----
#### NEELY v. THE STATE.

(Decided June 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J.

Appeal dismissed on authority of *Sanders v. State, infra,*70 South. 949.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                                  April 9, 2008

For:
INKSURE TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Attn: Mr. Mickey Brandt

                   RE: INKSURE TECNOLOGIES INC. - FORM 10-KSB

We hereby confirm our consent to use the name of this firm in connection with
the Risk Factors under the headlines "Under current Israeli law, Inksure Ltd.
May not be able to enforce covenants not to compete" (page 30) and "Under
Israeli Law, our stockholders may face difficulties in the enforcement of civil
liabilities" from the word "However, subject to (11th line)..." through the end
of the paragraph (page 31), of the form 10-KSB filed by you with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                       Very truly yours,

                                                    Yossi Avraham, Arad & Co.
```
QBffice of toe I?lttornep @eneral 

sibtate of Qexae 

DAN MORALES *TroRNw GENERAL 

October 3,199l 

Honorable Allen Hightower 

chairman 

Committee on Corrections 

Texas House of Representatives 

P.O. Box 2910 

Austin Texas 78768-2910 

Opinion DM-45A 

Re: Whether the amendment to 

article 42.18 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure regarding the mandatory 

time that inmates must serve prior to 

eligibility for parole is retroactive 

@Q-65) 

Dear Representative Hightower: 

Attorney General Opinion DM-45, issued on September 20,1991, is hereby 

withdrawn. 

Very truly yours, 

DAN MORALES 

Attorney General of Texas
§ 420.41 License to operate a launch site—general. ( a ) A license to operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to operate a launch site in accordance with the representations contained in the licensee's application, with terms and conditions contained in any license order accompanying the license, and subject to the licensee's compliance with 51 U.S.C. Subtitle V, chapter 509 and this chapter.
( b ) A license to operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a launch operator for each launch point for the type and any weight class of launch vehicle identified in the license application and upon which the licensing determination is based.
( c ) Issuance of a license to operate a launch site does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to comply with any other laws or regulations; nor does it confer any proprietary, property, or exclusive right in the use of airspace or outer space.
[Doc. No. FAA-1999-5833, 65 FR 62861, Oct. 19, 2000, as amended by Amdt. 420-5, 77 FR 20533, Apr. 5, 2012]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During 
the Week Ending April 28, 2000

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 
CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-1999-6319.
    Date Filed: April 28, 2000.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 19, 2000.
    Description: Amendment of Northwest Airlines, Inc. to its 
application pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41102 and subpart B, of its Route 564 
U.S.-Mexico certificate authority to request that the Department add a 
Houston-Mazatlan segment to Northwest's Route 564.

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-11690 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT
NUMBER FOUR


to


AMENDED AND RESTATED 2004 STOCK OPTION PLAN


of


SUPREME INDUSTRIES, INC.


 


The
Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”)
of Supreme Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), was adopted by the Company’s Board of Directors
effective as of February 7, 2006. 
The Plan has been amended by Amendment Number One thereto dated October 25,
2006, Amendment Number Two thereto dated March 28, 2007, and Amendment
Number Three thereto dated March 25, 2008.


 


Article 9
of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors may, at any time, without the
consent of the Participants under the Plan, amend the Plan.


 


After
reviewing the situation, the Board of Directors has determined that the
Amendment below can be made by the Board of Directors in accordance with such Article 9
and without the need for shareholder approval of such amendment.


 


Accordingly,
the Board of Directors hereby amends the Plan by deleting Section 2.15 (“Fair
Market Value”) and replacing it with the following:


 


“2.15      “Fair Market Value” means as of a relevant date,
if the Common Stock is traded on one or more established markets or exchanges,
the closing price of the Common Stock on the primary market or exchange on
which the Common Stock is traded on the business day immediately preceding the
relevant date, and if the Common Stock is not so traded or the Common Stock
does not trade on the business day immediately preceding the relevant date, the
value determined in good faith by the Board of Directors using a reasonable
valuation method in accordance with the provisions of Section 409A of the
Code or Section 422 of the Code, as applicable.  For purposes of valuing Incentive Stock
Options, the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock shall be determined without
regard to any restriction other than one which, by its terms, will never lapse.”


 


DATED
to be effective August 25, 2009.


 


	
   

  	
  BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

  
	
   

  	
  SUPREME INDUSTRIES,
  INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Herbert M. Gardner

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Herbert
  M. Gardner, Chairman of the Board
617

The Author 

 John Whiteclay Chambers II is Distinguished Professor and former Chair of the 

History Department at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. He earned his 

Ph.D. at Columbia University and taught there for ten years before joining the Rutgers 

University faculty in 1982. His books, several of which have won prizes, include To 

Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America (Free Press/Macmillan, 1987); The 

Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920 (St. Martin’s Press, 

1980; 2nd edition, revised, Rutgers University Press, 2000); World War II, Film and 

History (Oxford, 1996) Major Problems in American Military History (Houghton 

Mifflin, 1999), and The Oxford Companion to American Military History (Oxford, 1999). 

He helped to found the Rutgers Oral History Archives of World War II and still serves as 

Chair of its Academic Advisory Committee. He has authored many scholarly articles and 

book reviews, and he regularly reviews books on military history for the Washington 

Post.

 Among his professional awards are Outstanding Teacher Awards at Columbia 

University and Rutgers University, a Rockefeller Fellowship, a Fulbright Fellowship to 

the University of Rome, a Visiting Lectureship at the University of Tokyo, and a 

Fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-36,108 & NAFTA 3,104]

                    On August 17, 1999, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 31, 1999 (64 FR 47521).                

The Department initially denied TAA to workers of Sherman Lumber because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The workers at the subject firm were engaged in employment related to the production of maple flooring.

The petitioner asserted that sufficient customers have not been surveyed and requested that the Department survey bids lost by the subject firm.

On reconsideration, the Department requested that the subject firm provide additional information about customers and lost bids. The Department conducted a survey of lost domestic bids by the subject firm. The respondents indicated that their purchase of maple flooring were from domestic manufacturers.

## Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Sherman Lumber, Sherman Station, Maine.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of April, 2000.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-11120 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Comments on last NPDES Conference Call George Robinson
to: Jack Faulk 10/22/2009 03:04 PM Cc: "Bob Hays" Show Details

History: This message has been forwarded.

Jack, During the conference call last Thur sday, you said that you would allow comments to be submitted this week. I would like to comment on two of the topics discussed.

First, a minimum of 100 surface acres should be suff icient to eliminate most of the small landowners from being required to submit an NOI. Surface measur ements should include all of the treated water. Some treatments are applied to a small area, but are intended to spread throughout the water body. If the measurement only includes the areas of water that contact the pesticide, larger applicators may not meet the minimum requirements. For exam ple, most irrigation herbicides in canals are mixed in a small area, b ut will treat the length of the canal, or mosquito la rvacide briquettes designed to be dropped in the edge of the pond and then dissolve to cover the entire surface.

Second, commercial applicators s hould not be required to submit an NOI. The landowner/property manager should be the legally responsible party for that action. This would be consistent with the
p roposal for mosquito abatement di stricts or irrigation can al companies, where the decision maker for the application is responsible for the paperwork and IPM decisions. A commercial applicator is typically contracted by the grower or chemical company representative to make a specific application of a product to a specific location. The commercial app licator can refuse to make the application, but the applicator does not typically make the decision on which product to use, or which field is treated. The decision-making process is an esse ntial element to the NPDES process and the individuals that make the application decisions should be the parties requesting the NOI.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

George Robinson Idaho State Dept of Agriculture Phone: (208) 332-8593 Fax: (208) 334-3547 Page 1 of 1 Comments on last NPDES Conference Call

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web5516.htm
#### § 417.7 Public safety responsibility.

A launch operator is responsible for ensuring the safe conduct of a licensed launch and for ensuring public safety and safety of property at all times during the conduct of a licensed launch.
#### COSBY v. HICKS, ET AL.

(Decided November 18, 1915.)

Appeal from Tallapoosa Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
SERVED: APRIL 23, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

KEYSTONE LABORATORIES 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0203 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

?: 3c1 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009CE700105) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the' other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 

.~ ......... .. 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Adam D. Otto, Respondent's Counsel 

Otto Law Office 

P.O. Box 1356 

303 South Second Avenue West 

Newton, IA 50208 

TEL: 641-792•7000 

FAX: 641-792-7001 

ONE COPY 

Gayle E. Townsend, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Room 506, DOT Building 

901 Locust 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3766 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

"' 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant · 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0203 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 

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

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
#### § 71.41 Class B airspace.

The Class B airspace areas listed in subpart B of FAA Order JO 7400.11J (incorporated by reference, see § 71.1) consist of specified airspace within which all aircraft operators are subject to the minimum pilot qualification requirements, operating rules, and aircraft equipment requirements of part 91 of this chapter. Each Class B airspace area designated for an airport in subpart B of FAA Order JO 7400.11J (incorporated by reference, see § 71.1) contains at least one primary airport around which the airspace is designated.

[Doc. No. 29334, 73 FR 54495, Sept. 22, 2008, as amended by Amdt. 71-40, 73 FR 60940, Oct. 15, 2008; Amdt. 71-41, 74 FR 46490, Sept. 10, 2009; Amdt. 71-42, 75 FR 55268, Sept. 10, 2010; Amdt. 71-43, 76 FR 53329, Aug. 26, 2011; Amdt. 71-44, 77 FR 50908, Aug. 23, 2012; Amdt. 71-45, 78 FR 52848, Aug. 27, 2013; Amdt. 71-46, 79 FR 51888, Sept. 2, 2014; Amdt. 71-47, 80 FR 51937, Aug. 27, 2015; Amdt. 71-48, 81 FR 55372, Aug. 19, 2016; Amdt. 71-49, 82 FR 40068, Aug. 24, 2017; Amdt. 71-50, 83 FR 43757, Aug. 28, 2018; Amdt. 71-51, 84 FR 45652, Aug. 30, 2019; Amdt. 71-52, 85 FR 50780, Aug. 18, 2020; Amdt. No. 71-53, 86 FR 46963, Aug. 23, 2021; Docket No. FAA-2022-1022, Amdt. No. 71-54, 87 FR 54878, Sept. 8, 2022; Docket No. FAA-2023-1785; Amendment No. 71-55, 88 FR 58072, Aug. 25, 2023; Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, 89 FR 68339, Aug. 26, 2024]

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

By Docket No. FAA-2024-2061; Amendment No. 71-56, 89 FR 68339, Aug. 26, 2024, § 71.41 was amended by removing the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” everywhere that they appear and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, effective Sept. 15, 2024 through Sept. 15, 2025.
EXHIBIT 1 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3140-1 Filed:05/24/18 Entered:05/24/18 14:42:12 Desc:

Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 2
Puerto Rico General Obligation Bondholders Announce Agreement on 

Settlement Framework for Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute

WASHINGTON AND SAN JUAN – Today, stakeholders representing a diverse group of 

economic interests, including holders and insurers of bonds issued by the Commonwealth and its 

instrumentalities, and representatives of on-island bondholders announced agreement on a 

framework for a comprehensive settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA dispute. 

Notably, the supporting parties have come together for the first time in years to forge an 

agreement on a settlement framework that provides for a consensual path to a successful 

restructuring. The settlement framework reached by this diverse group of stakeholders would 

significantly decrease the duration and cost of Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy, while also providing for 

substantial deleveraging. 

The following statement can be attributed to Andrew Rosenberg of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, 

Wharton and Garrison LLP, an advisor to the Ad Hoc Group of Puerto Rico General Obligation 

Bondholders:

“This settlement framework paves the way for the Commonwealth to end its default and achieve 

significant restructuring of its debt. We look forward to having the Oversight Board and the 

Commonwealth as our partners in helping Puerto Rico emerge from Title III.”

The settlement framework and additional background information can be viewed here.

Media Contact: Miriam Warren (202)772-2186 or mwarren@dcigroup.com

###

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3140-1 Filed:05/24/18 Entered:05/24/18 14:42:12 Desc:

Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 2
#### § 372.25 Tariffs to be filed for charter trips.

Effective October 1, 1972, a charter operator shall not operate or sell or offer to sell, solicit or advertise, any charter trips unless such operator shall have on file with the Department a currently effective tariff showing all rates, fares, and charges for such charter trips and showing the rules, regulations, practices, and services in connection with such transportation.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 12, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00617-CV

IN RE FIDELIS JOHNSON BADAIKI, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

County Civil Court at Law No. 4 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1092824

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 9, 2019, relator Fidelis Johnson Badaiki filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Supp.); see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Lesley 

Briones, presiding judge of the County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County, 

to, among other things, recuse herself or rule on various motions that are allegedly 

pending. A jury trial is scheduled for August 12, 2019 at 1:00 p.m.
2 

Relator also has filed a motion for temporary relief, asking this court to stay 

all proceeding in the trial court, pending a decision on relator’s petition. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.10.

With certain exceptions not applicable in this proceeding, to obtain mandamus 

relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and 

that the relator has no adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal. In re Prudential 

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re 

Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). As the 

party seeking relief, relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient 

record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 

833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must file 

with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the 

relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(2) requires relator to file with its petition “a 

properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying 

proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no 

testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.” See Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.7.

Relator has not established or provided a record showing he is entitled to 

mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and 

motion for temporary relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.