alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1986.112 Judicial review. ( a ) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation.
( b ) A final order is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
( c ) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB, or the ALJ, as the case may be, to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of such court.
[81 FR 63409, Sept. 15, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 30625, May 20, 2020]
ex10-2.htm


 

Exhibit 10.2

 

NATIONAL Holdings Corporation

410 Park Avenue, 14th Floor

New York, NY 10022

 

 

                                  March 30, 2015 

 

Mr. Alan B. Levin

605 NW 111th Way

Coral Springs, FL 33071


 

Dear Alan:

 

Reference is made to your Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2008 (“Agreement”), by and between National Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and you (the “Executive”). This Agreement has been extended pursuant to its terms.

 

In consideration of the premises and mutual conveyance set forth herein, for the payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) to you and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are mutually acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

 

1.        Paragraph 2(b) is hereby amended as follows: the first sentence of such paragraph is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following inserted in its place: 

 

“During the Term of Employment, the Executive shall have such financial duties, titles, power and authority as maybe delegated to him, from time to time, by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. At present, such duties, titles, power and authority shall encompass being employed and serving as the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer.” 

 

2.        Paragraph 6(i) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“Change in Control of the Company. If the Executive elects to terminate his employment for Good Reason during the thirty (30) day period immediately following the Change in Control of the Company, then the Executive shall be entitled to the same payments and benefits as provided in Section 6(e) above for a termination due to the Executive’s Termination Without Cause. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this Paragraph only, the definition of Good Reason contained in Paragraph 1(q)(i) relating to a material diminution in such position, authority, duties or responsibilities after the date of the Change in Control, shall be determined based on the Executive’s position, authority, duties, and responsibilities as of immediately prior to the Change of Control of the Company.”

 


 

 




 


 

3.             Paragraph 1(t) is hereby amended as follows: “50%” is hereby deleted and substituted in its place by “100%”.

 

4.             Paragraph 1(u) is hereby amended as follows: “six (6)” is hereby deleted and substituted in its place by “twelve (12)”. 

 

Except as amended hereby, all terms and provisions of the Agreement shall continue unmodified and remain in full force and effect. 

 

	
 
	 	
NATIONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION
	
 

	 	 	 	 
	
 
	 	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	 	
By: 
	
/s/ Mark Goldwasser
	
 

	
 
	 	
Name:
	
Mark Goldwasser
	
 

	
 
	 	
Title:
	
President 
	
 

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Alan B. Levin	 	 	 	 
	Alan B. Levin
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 15 - 00169 - CV

________________________ IN RE JUSTIN CHIS U M , RELATOR Original Proceeding Arising from the 36 4th District Court

Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015 - 820,779 ; Honorable William R. Eichman II , Presiding May 4 , 2015 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Pending before this Court is a petition for writ of mandamus filed on behalf of Justin Chis u m . He requests that we issue a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable William Eichman II, to enter an order staying grand jury proceedings pertaining to criminal accusations pending against him . We deny the petition as moot.2

In February 2015, Chis u m wa s arraigned for the murder of his four year old daughter. 1 In March, his attorneys filed a Suggestion of Competency and a trial court entered an Order for Examination Regarding Incompetency . After a court - appointed psychologist examined Chis u m and, by affidavit, opined him to be not currently competent to proceed in defense of his case, Chis u m filed a motion seeking to stay grand jury proceedings because he believed the district attorney intended to present his case to the grand jury on the mor ning of April 16. The trial court held a hearing on April 15 and denied the motion. That same day , Chis u m filed with this Court his Petition for Writ of Mandamus and an Emergency Motion for a Stay of Proceedings . On April 16, w e denied the motion seekin g an emergency stay of the grand jury proceedings. Pursuant to an inquiry by the Clerk of the Court, it has now come to our attention that the criminal accusations pending against Chis u m have been presented to the grand jury and that an indictment has been returned. Because the relief being sought by his petition for writ of mandamus has now become moot , the petition is denied.
Patrick A. Pirtle Justice

1 Although Chisum never specifically states as much, we assume the arraignment was pursuant to an information based upon complaint. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 21.22.
#### Ward *vs.*Mozer & Mervin.

ALBANY,

Dec. 1838.

In an action on a recognizance of bail pat in' in a court of common pleas, prosecuted in this court, the time of surrender is governed by the practice of this court, and not by the practice of the court in which the recognizance was taken.

Exoneretur of bail. The defendants were sued in this court as *special bail*on a recognizance entered into in the superior court of the city of New-York, in a suit prosecuted in that court. Within the *first eight days of the term*of this court succeeding the commencement of the suit against the bail, the *principal*was surrendered, and on such surrender the bail applied to the superior court for an order directing an *exoneretur*to 'be entered on the bail piece. That court refused to grant the order, for the reason that by its rules the surrender must be made *within ten days after the commencement of the suit*against the bail or the bail are fixed, and that more than ten days had elasped since the suit against the bail. A motion was thereupon made in this court for an *exoneretur.*

*J. M. Van Cott,*

for the motion, relied upon the case of *Fisher*v. *Branscombe,*7 T. R. 355.

S. *F. Cowdrey,*

contra,.cited *Shuttle*v. *Wood,*6 Mod. 132.

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

The cases cited-are conflicting. *Shuttle*y. *Wood*holds that in an action in the *king's bench*on a recognizance taken in the *common bench*the court are to be governed in respect to the surrender of bail by the practice of the latter court; whereas the case of *Fisher*v. *Branscombe*holds that the practice of the court in which the action against the bail is brought should govern. I am disposed to adopt the latter case as a precedent, and therefore grant the motion.
Recent Similar Granted 333 Exemptions

 Exemption No. 15151 Aerial photography and videography for crop surveying, 

inspections and other flight operations.

 Exemption No. 15140 DJI Inspire 1, Phantom 3 

 Exemption No. 14901 Aerial surveying, imaging, and inspections

 Exemption No. 14301 Precision agriculture, aerial mapping and imaging, utility pipeline 

and powerline inspection.

 Exemption No. 13926 Aerial photography and videography for real estate, Blade 

Chroma
Order entered Octo ber 19, 2017

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01122

- CV

CIA BABIY, Appellant

V.

RAMZI MORGAN KELLEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicia l District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416

- 04069

- 2015



### O RDER

Before the Court is the October 17, 2017 request of court reporter Destiny M. Moses for

an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER th e

reporter’s record filed by Monday, November 2 7 , 2017.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 21


SUBSIDIARIES OF LILLY INDUSTRIES, INC. AS OF FEBRUARY 23, 1996


         All subsidiaries other than London Laboratories GmbH are doing business
as Lilly Industries, Inc.


         Name of Subsidiary                        State of Incorporation

1.       Lilly Industries, Inc.(Canada)               Ontario, Canada

2.       Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.                 Indiana

3.       London Laboratories Limited                  Ontario, Canada
         (Subsidiary of
         Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.)

4.       London Laboratories GmbH                     Germany
         (Subsidiary of
         Lilly Industries (USA), Inc.)

5.       Lilly Industries (Far East), Ltd.            Taiwan

6.       Lilly Industries (Malaysia) Sdn.Bhd.         Malaysia

7.       Lilly Industries (Asia) Limited              Hong Kong

8.       Lilly Industries (Thailand) Ltd.             Thailand

9.       Dongguan Lilly Paint Industries Ltd.         Peoples Republic
         (Subsidiary of Lilly (Asia) Limited)              of China
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7091

YUSUF ABDUL AL-WAHHAB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; SUPREME COURT OF

VIRGINIA; GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE COUNCIL ON HUMAN

RIGHTS; BOARD OF EDUCATION, Director; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director; AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; L. W. SAUNDERS, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-7160

YUSUF ABDUL AL-WAHHAB,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; SUPREME COURT OF

VIRGINIA; GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE COUNCIL ON HUMAN

RIGHTS; BOARD OF EDUCATION, Director; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director; AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; L. W. SAUNDERS, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-95-194-CV-3)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yusuf Abdul Al-Wahhab, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the

appeals on the reasoning of the district court. Al-Wahhab v.

Virginia, No. CA-95-194-CV-3 (E.D. Va. June 5, June 28 & July 20,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12623]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

Cancellations of Previously Announced Meetings

Tuesday, May 16, 2000, 10 a.m.

    Meeting closed to the public.

Thursday, May 18, 2000, 10 a.m.

    Meeting open to the public.


DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:   
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438a(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.


DATE AND TIME: Thursday, May 25, 2000 at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC (ninth floor).

STATUS:  This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:   
Correction and approval of Minutes
Draft Advisory Opinion 2000-06
    Gerald M. Moan on behalf of the 2000 Convention Committee of the 
Reform Party U.S.A.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2000-07
    Alcatel USA, Inc. by counsel, Jonathan B. Newton
Proposal to initiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Political 
Committee Definition (11 CFR 100.5)
Administrative matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-12623 Filed 5-16-00; 11:39 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1031

In re: TIMOTHY SEAN COOGLE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:17-cr-00167-1)

Submitted: March 23, 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Sean Coogle, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Sean Coogle petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that this court 

direct the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Our review of the district 

court’s docket reveals that the district court accepted the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denied relief on Coogle’s § 2255 motion on January 13, 2021. Accordingly, we 

deny Coogle’s mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        2,064,213
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,311,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              3,459,472
<PP&E>                                        1,625,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (198,105)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4,886,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,135,957
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         4,326,809
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        103,493
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1,679,650)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4,886,609
<SALES>                                       2,223,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,223,888
<CGS>                                         1,625,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,625,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2,133,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,534,604)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,534,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,534,604)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.160)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.160)



</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4877 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a refundable 

tax credit to help middle class taxpayers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26 (legislative day, OCTOBER 19), 2020 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish 

a refundable tax credit to help middle class taxpayers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rebuild Americans’ 

5 Income to Strengthen and Empower Working Families 

6 Act’’ or ‘‘RAISE Working Families Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MIDDLE CLASS TAX CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart C of part IV of sub9 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4877 IS

1 1986 is amended by inserting after section 36 the fol2 lowing new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 36A. MIDDLE CLASS TAX CREDIT. 

4 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of an eli5 gible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against 

6 the tax imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year an 

7 amount equal to the lesser of— 

8 ‘‘(1) $500 ($1,000 in the case of eligible indi9 viduals filing a joint return), or 

10 ‘‘(2) the earned income (as defined in section 

11 32(c)(2)) of the taxpayer for the taxable year. 

12 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION BASED ON MODIFIED ADJUSTED

13 GROSS INCOME.—The amount of the credit allowed by 

14 subsection (a) (determined without regard to this sub15 section) for any taxable year shall be reduced (but not 

16 below zero) by 2.5 percent of so much of the taxpayer’s 

17 modified adjusted gross income (as defined in section 

18 24(b)(1)) as exceeds $50,000 ($100,000 in the case of a 

19 joint return). 

20 ‘‘(c) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this 

21 section, the term ‘eligible individual’ has the same mean22 ing given such term under section 6428(d). 

23 ‘‘(d) TREATMENT OF POSSESSIONS.—Rules similar 

24 to the rules of subsection (c) of section 2201 of the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4877 IS

1 CARES Act (Public Law 116–136) shall apply for pur2 poses of this section.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— 

4 (1) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘36A,’’ 

6 after ‘‘36,’’. 

7 (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part 

8 IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is 

9 amended by inserting after the item relating to sec10 tion 36 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 36A. Middle Class Tax Credit.’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
§ 1626.10 Agreements with State or local fair employment practices agencies. ( a ) Pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the ADEA and section 11(b) of the FLSA, the Commission may enter into agreements with State or local fair employment practices agencies to cooperate in enforcement, technical assistance, research, or public informational activities, and may engage the services of such agencies in processing charges assuring the safeguard of the Federal rights of aggrieved persons.
( b ) The Commission may enter into agreements with State or local agencies which authorize such agencies to receive charges and complaints pursuant to § 1626.5 and in accordance with the specifications contained in §§ 1626.7 and 1626.8.
( c ) When a worksharing agreement with a State agency is in effect, the State agency will act on certain charges and the Commission will promptly process charges which the State agency does not pursue. Charges received by one agency under the agreement shall be deemed received by the other agency for purposes of § 1626.7
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 24



                            THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.

                          DIRECTORS' POWER OF ATTORNEY


Each of the undersigned members of the Board of Directors of The Lamson &
Sessions Co., an Ohio Corporation, which anticipates filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., an annual report of the Corporation
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 3, 1998 ("1997 Form 10-K") under
the provisions of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, does hereby constitute
and appoint James J. Abel and John B. Schulze, jointly and severally, with full
power and substitution and resubstitution, as attorney(s) to sign for him and in
his name, in the capacities indicated below, the 1997 Form 10-K, including any
amendments and exhibits thereto, with full power and authority to do and perform
any and all acts and things whatsoever necessary and required to be done in
connection with such signing as fully to all intents and purposes as he would do
if personally present, hereby ratifying and approving the acts of said
attorney(s) and any substitutes(s) therefor in connection with such signing:

EXECUTED as of February 26, 1998.


 /s/ James T. Bartlett                      /s/ John C. Dannemiller
-----------------------------------        ---------------------------------
James T. Bartlett - Director                John C. Dannemiller - Director



 /s/ Francis H. Beam, Jr.                   /s/ George R. Hill
-----------------------------------        ---------------------------------
Francis H. Beam, Jr. - Director             George R. Hill -  Director



 /s/ Martin J. Cleary                       /s/ A. Malachi Mixon, III
-----------------------------------        ---------------------------------
 Martin J. Cleary - Director                A. Malachi Mixon, III - Director



/s/ William H. Coquillette                  /s/  John C. Morley
-----------------------------------        ---------------------------------
William H. Coquillette - Director          John C. Morley - Director



                               /s/ D. Van Skilling
                               -------------------------------
                                   D. Van Skilling - Director


                                      -46-