alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. J. Res. 25

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for the appointment of John W. McCarter as a citizen regent of the 

Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), 

the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 

in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring because 

of the expiration of the term of Walter E. Massey of Georgia, 

is filled by the appointment of John W. McCarter of Illinois, for 

a term of 6 years, effective on the date of the enactment of this 

resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 38.38 Publications, broadcasts, and other communications. ( a ) Recipients must indicate that the WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity in question is an “equal opportunity employer/program,” and that “auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities,” in recruitment brochures and other materials that are ordinarily distributed or communicated in written and/or oral form, electronically and/or on paper, to staff, clients, or the public at large, to describe programs financially assisted under Title I of WIOA or the requirements for participation by recipients and participants. Where such materials indicate that the recipient may be reached by voice telephone, the materials must also prominently provide the telephone number of the text telephone (TTY) or equally effective telecommunications system, such as a relay service, videophone, or captioned telephone used by the recipient, as required by § 38.15(b).
( b ) Recipients that publish or broadcast program information in the news media must ensure that such publications and broadcasts state that the WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity in question is an equal opportunity employer/program (or otherwise indicate that discrimination in the WIOA Title I-financially assisted program or activity is prohibited by Federal law), and indicate that auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities.
( c ) A recipient must not communicate any information that suggests, by text or illustration, that the recipient treats beneficiaries, registrants, applicants, participants, employees or applicants for employment differently on any prohibited basis specified in § 38.5, except as such treatment is otherwise permitted under Federal law or this part.
(78 South. 644)

#### KELLY v. STATE.

(4 Div. 568.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 16, 1918.)

Criminal Law ■f=1159(3) — Appeal — Review-Conflicting Evidence.

Where the evidence is conflicting, and that offered by the state, if believed, is sufficient to support a judgment for conviction, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

Jesse Kelly was convicted of a crime, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

W. O. Mulkey, of Geneva, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W. W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The only question presented in this case is one of fact. The evidence is in irreconcilable' conflict, and that offered by the state, if believed, is sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendant is guilty as charged. The trial judge was in a better position to judge of the credibility of the witnesses than we are, and we do not feel justified in disturbing the judgment of conviction. Williams v. State, ante, p. 329, 77 South. 923. Affirmed.
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Mendocino County Resource Advisory Committee will meet January 21, 2011 (RAC) in Willits, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Approval of minutes, (2) Handout Discussion, (3) Public Comment, (4) Financial Report, (5) Sub-committees, (6) Matters before the group, (7) Discussion—approval of projects, (8) Next agenda and meeting date.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on January 21, 2011, from 9 a.m. until 12 noon.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Mendocino County Museum, located at 400 E. Commercial St., Willits, California.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Roberta Hurt, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Covelo Ranger District, 78150 Covelo Road, Covelo CA 95428, (707) 983-6658; e-mail                         *windmill@willitsonline.com.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff by January 15, 2011. Public commenters will have the opportunity to address the Committee at the meeting.

Dated: December 14, 2010.

Lee Johnson,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 2011-2 Filed 1-5-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.21D

                                    EXHIBIT A

                             FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
                         KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
                    401+ EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

                            (CONFORMED COPY INCLUDING
                        FIRST THROUGH FOURTH AMENDMENTS)



1.  The third sentence of Section 3.1 is amended to read as follows:

          "Such amount or rate of compensation deferred shall not exceed the
          excess of (i) fifteen percent of the Participant's compensation on a
          combined basis with (ii) the maximum amount of Deferral Contributions
          that the Participant is authorized to elect for the Plan Year under
          the Incentive Savings Plan."

2.  The amendment made herein shall take effect on January 1, 2002.

3.  In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed this
5th day of December, 2001.


                                  KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION



                                  By:  /s/ D. Michael Parker
                                     ----------------------------------------

                                  Its: Senior Vice President, Finance/CFO
                                      ---------------------------------------
#### CINCINNATI (city) et v ALCORN ALCORN v CINNATI (city) et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21947.

No 21995.

Decided April 23, 1930

Decided April 23, 1930

Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
(79 South. 154)

#### BRUNER v. STATE.

(4 Div. 562.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 11, 1918.

On Rehearing, June 29, 1918.)

Animals <&wkey;45 — Wanton Killing — Criminal Responsibility.

Though by provisions of Code 1907, § 6231, it is matter of defense or mitigation in prosecution for wanton killing of animals that “at the time” the animals were trespassing on a growing crop, previous trespassing and notice to owner is unavailing.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.

Ed Bruner was convicted of wanton killing of animals, and appeals.

Affirmed.

McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The indictment charges that defendant unlawfully, wantonly, or maliciously killed, disabled, disfigured, destroyed, or injured three hogs, the property of John Leroy. The evidence tends to show that at the time the hogs were killed, they were ■trespassing upon the defendant’s property, or property under his management and control, and there is some evidence tending to show that they were trespassing upon a growing crop.

The evidence shows that the farm of Leroy and that under the control of the defendant were adjoining farms, and defendant offered to show that these hogs had repeatedly trespassed on the crops under his supervision or control; that he had given repeated notices to the owner of the hogs about the trespasses, and made request of the owner of the hogs that they be kept off of defendant’s premises. On objection of the solicitor, the court refused to allow this proof to be made. This ruling is in accord with the holding in Thompson v. State, 67 Ala. 106, 42 Am. Rep. 101; Johnson v. Patterson, 14 Conn. 1, 35 Am. Dec. 96. This disposes of the only question presented by this appeal.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing.

The answer to the application for rehearing is that the law afforded the defendant a full remedy by authorizing him to impound the trespassing hogs, and require the owner to pay the damages resulting from their trespass, and therefore he had no right to destroy them. It was the right of the defendant to show that “at the time of the injury the animals killed or injured were trespassing upon a growing crop,” not that they had repeatedly or previously so trespassed. Code 1907, § 6231. The defendant was denied no right secured to ,4um by the statute, but he was given the full benefit thereof.

Application overruled.
§ 459.3 Documents in a proceeding. ( a ) *Title.* Documents in any proceeding under part 458 of this subchapter, including correspondence, shall show the title of the proceeding and the case number, if any.
( b ) *Signature.* The original of each document required to be filed under these regulations shall be signed by the party or by an attorney or representative of record for the party, or by an officer of the party, and shall contain the address and telephone number of the person signing it.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6085** 

DEMAR WORRELL , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. WAYNE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; MOUNT OLIVE POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRANSON VICKORY, III; MIKE RICKS; LT. TOMMY BROWN , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:12

- ct

- 03121

- FL )

Submitted : May 23, 2013 Decided: May 29, 2013

Before MOTZ and AGEE , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Demar Worrell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Demar Worrell appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (200 6 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Worrell v. Wayne County District Attorney’s Office , No. 5:12

- ct

- 03121

- FL (E.D.N.C., Dec. 6, 2012 )
. We deny as moot Worrell’s mot ion to expedite decision
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adeq uately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 10.10
 LANCASTER COLONY CORPORATION
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 Agreement Grant Date Company Director
  Plan
    Terms of
Award Awarded Shares
 Provisions of Plan Controlling
 Vesting of Restricted Stock
 Section 3. (b)
 64




---



##### 



Section 3. (a) Vesting Date
    Dividend and Voting Rights.
 Section 3(a)
 provided
 Additional Shares
 Section 3(a) Section 3(a)
  Legends
 65




---



##### 



Investment Intent
 Notices
 To the Company
 
 To the Director
     Governing Law
 66




---



##### 



Benefit of Agreement
 Entire Agreement provided however
 Modifications and Amendments
 Waivers and Consents
  LANCASTER COLONY CORPORATIONBy:<<name>>, Director
 67
§ 38.110 Enforcement procedures. ( a ) *Sanctions; judicial enforcement.* If compliance has not been achieved after issuance of a Final Determination under §§ 38.95 and 38.96, or a Notification of Breach of Conciliation Agreement under §§ 38.98 through 38.100, the Secretary may: ( 1 ) After opportunity for a hearing, suspend, terminate, deny or discontinue the WIOA Title I financial assistance, in whole or in part;
( 2 ) Refer the matter to the Attorney General with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted; or
( 3 ) Take such action as may be provided by law, which may include seeking injunctive relief.
( b ) *Deferral of new grants.* When proceedings under § 38.111 have been initiated against a particular recipient, the Department may defer action on that recipient's applications for new WIOA Title I financial assistance until a Final Decision under § 38.112 has been rendered. Deferral is not appropriate when WIOA Title I financial assistance is due and payable under a previously approved application. ( 1 ) New WIOA Title I financial assistance includes all assistance for which an application or approval, including renewal or continuation of existing activities, or authorization of new activities, is required during the deferral period.
( 2 ) New WIOA Title I financial assistance does not include assistance approved before the beginning of proceedings under § 38.111, or increases in funding as a result of changed computations of formula awards.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AMUR FINANCE COMPANY, INC. §

and AMUR FINANCE IV LLC, § No. 7, 2018

§

Defendants-Below, § Court Below—Court of Chancery

Appellants, § of the State of Delaware

§

v. § No. 2017-0145-JRS

§

PINE RIVER MASTER FUND LTD. §

and PINE RIVER FIXED INCOME §

MASTER FUND LTD., §

§

Plaintiffs-Below, §

Appellees. §

Submitted: June 13, 2018

Decided: July 9, 2018

Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.

O R D E R

This 9

th day of July 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, 

oral argument, and the record on appeal, it appears that the judgment of the Court 

of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its

October 12, 2017 Memorandum Opinion.

1

 

1

Justice Traynor concurs in the judgment, but on a different reading of the Credit 

Agreement than the Court of Chancery’s. In his view, Amur Finance IV’s periodic transfers to 

Amur Finance Company of dividends it received on shares of a third-party company that Amur 

Finance Company had given it to hold—purportedly pursuant to an agreement the two 

companies negotiated prior to the Credit Agreement—were not, as the Court of Chancery said, 

prohibited “distributions in respect of [Amur Finance IV’s] equity interests” within the meaning 

of § 5.07(d) of the Credit Agreement or prohibited “transactions” with an affiliate within the 

meaning of § 5.07(f), but rather were prohibited “payments” to an affiliate under § 5.07(f).
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### § 452.69 Expenses of campaign literature.

Each candidate must be treated equally with respect to the expense of such distribution. Thus, a union and its officers must honor a candidate's request for distribution where the candidate is willing and able to bear the expense of such distribution. However, should the candidate be unable to bear such expense, there is no requirement that the union distribute the literature of the candidate free of charge. In the event the union distributes any candidate's literature without charge, however, all other candidates are entitled to have their literature distributed on the same basis. Since labor organizations have an affirmative duty to comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to distribute campaign literature (at the candidate's expense), a union rule refusing all such distributions would not be proper, even though applied in a nondiscriminatory fashion. In view of the fact that expenses of distribution are to be borne by the candidate a labor organization may not refuse to distribute campaign literature merely because it may have a small staff which cannot handle such distribution for all candidates. If this is the case, the organization may employ additional temporary staff or contract the job to a professional mailer and charge the expense incurred to the candidates for whom the service is being rendered. The organization may require candidates to tender in advance the estimated costs of distributing their literature, if such requirement is applied uniformly.
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA-2012- tJtJ!./o Directorate Identifier: 2012-NE-;?(AD 

Ij'you make changes to the values in the toh/e belmv, .1 '011 must ensure the totals updare oc ording~v. Il 

they do nor. click (i)J' Tab) into and then out o{the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Replace HMU 

ARRIEL 2D, 2012- 0.7 \ ~;~; .. :di $14,400 •., i J..] ~'J. c,t) 27 "·;')0.-lOt.:'io 

0141 \. ., II l/(1 ... \ II (It) 0 s () ()() 

r ... , \ () (l\) ... . / " ' i).ll(i 0 ~ 11 .on 

t<i;i~~ <, il ( J(} (' (i,(ll) 0 ') () (ll) 

'"'· ~: { J flO · .. ··>;. " 1).(1() 0 -;; ll. ()() 

o\·1( \. \1 {)(j ·,_. ,. 

; IJOO 0 ' ,) 0 .liU 

':-u \ I).(){ J f :\ ... ... 

.;• U.Oil 0 s n. OfJ 

; \ 0 O(J f, .':} 0 (i\.) 0 ) {) fl() 

.• .. d \ (} I )I) ,; ·' '· i) fill :};,,. 

"· l). \ i() ·' c' .. 

\ (i ! )() \ (l (li) " it ~) (i (I( I 

·' .. ') () l J() ,, ..... , .. \ (J. ()(I .:. : ··~··''! \ (). 0() 

,: \ (! ( ){) .. 

··•· . . t···· i..) () I Hl * :. . '· ·~< :, ~~ \ () Oll 

: ;\ I i ilf! > ., • \ ( 1. ()(i , :· : s 0 iJO ., 

·. () ! li I (I.()() .. ;,,•!] \ ( 1. (JI J " ) 

~y '•, II flO '., .;.. '; 0. (}() ,.;~/~ '-, (!,{)() 

;::' .·;;, ,' ' ) (l (I( I .::·:. >i,l ' 0 {)(I L '~tj, .,,i ;;; ( 1_()(1 

., ·' 

;·., ", ll.{ili ,' \ 1)_(1(1 : . '?:!>1 \ 11. (J() 

J \ (j I )I) ' s 1).(1(1 ·'1 " 1.1.00 

' () ilil ' \1 Ill i :. <.; " 1)_()(1 ·' 

'· '·· (! I)!) ·· .. ....., () I l! I _\._ .., o no 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $390,407 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

' 0. { H J s 0 ()() 

.. iJ 1)\ i -"- <..; ()I){) 

'· fJ l H t \ (! ()() 

,, II Iii I ':> ( j. ()(I 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): ASE Estimate 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? ~ 

YES* D NO C8J 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* D NO C8J 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. '- ' 

YES D NO C8J 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? '-

YES* D NO C8J 

*Explanation:
Order entered August 10, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00738

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S .V., S.V., AND S.V., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 469th Judicial Distr ict Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 469

- 56356

- 2016



### O RDER

Before the Court is the parties’ August 8, 2018 joint motion for corrected order. In their motion, the parties state that they do not challenge the trial court’s rulings but seek an amended decree of divorce correcting several clerical errors. They attach a jointly prepared amended decree and ask the Court to enter it. Alternatively, they ask that the case be remanded for entry of the amended decree by the trial court. Appellant also states that she “withdraws her appeal to the extent [she] challenges the trial court’s rulings.” We construe the parties’ motion as an agreement to abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate their agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C).
We GRANT the motion. We REMAND this case to the trial court to allow the trial court to sign the parties ’ Amended Final Divorce Decree.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Piper
McGra w, Presiding Judge of the 469th Judicial District Court, and all parties.
We ABATE this appeal. The appeal will be reinstated in thirty days or when appellant files a motion to dismiss the appeal, whichever occurs sooner.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTI CE
Exhibit 10.4




Exhibit 10.4
WAIVER TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
DATED AS OF JULY 1, 2012 (“AGREEMENT”)
This Waiver (“Waiver”) is entered into as of March 23, 2015 by and between Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (“TCP”) and Ellis Yan (“Executive”).   Unless otherwise set out herein, capitalized terms have the same meaning as in the Agreement.
RECITALS
Having originally entered into the Agreement, which currently remains in full force and effect, TCP and Executive have each determined that, for good and sufficient reasons, it is desirable to waive certain provisions in the Agreement in certain respects.
Therefore, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein:
1.    For purposes of providing the written notice referred to in the last sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement for the Initial Term, the Parties hereby agree to waive the 90 day period referred to therein and to replace it with a written notice provided by either Executive or TCP to the other Party no later than June 15, 2015.
2.    For purposes of determining whether TCP shall deliver a written notice as referred to in the last sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement for the Initial Term, the Parties hereby agree that the Board shall make such determination, and Ellis Yan advises TCP and agrees that he will abstain from voting as a director of TCP International as to such determination.
3.    In all other respects, the Agreement remains unchanged. 









	
				
	TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.
	 
	EXECUTIVE

	By:
	/s/ Brian Catlett
	 
	/s/ Ellis Yan

	Name:
	Brian Catlett
	 
	Name: Ellis Yan

	Title
	CFO
	 
	Address: 325 Campus Drive
Aurora, OH 44202