alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10(Z)(9)



                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT

         AGREEMENT made as of May 24, 1995 between LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY,
a New York  corporation,  having its  principal  offices at 175 East Old Country
Road,  Hicksville,  New York 11801  (hereinafter  the "Company") and WINFIELD E.
FROMM, residing in Ft. Myers, Florida (hereinafter the "Consultant");

         WHEREAS, the company has requested that the Consultant
perform services for it; and

         WHEREAS, the Consultant is willing to perform consulting
services for the Company;

         NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that:
         1.  Effective  May  24,  1995,  the  Consultant  will be  engaged  as a
Consulting Director for a period ending on the day of the 1996 Annual Meeting of
Shareowners.  The Consultant  will advise and counsel the Board of Directors and
any of its  committees on various  business and financial  matters and any other
areas requested by or on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Company.

         2. For such services,  the Consultant  will receive an annual  retainer
equal to the annual  retainer  paid to a duly elected  Director,  an  additional
$500.00 for each Board or  Committee  meeting  attended and the same pension and
health benefits provided to a duly elected director.

         3.       The Consultant shall have the right to participate as a
Consulting Director in the Company's Deferred Compensation Plan


<PAGE>


for Directors and the Company's Retirement Income Plan for
Directors.

         4.       This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of New York.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this agreement has been executed this 23rd day of
August, 1995.


   CONSULTANT                                     LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY



/s/ WINFIELD E. FROMM                                    /s/ KATHLEEN A. MARION
--------------------------                              -----------------------
    WINFIELD E. FROMM                                       CORPORATE SECRETARY
# GDRE>0\5 V TELEPHON E COOPKRATIVE . INC . 

### •i•PARTM^NTO^ 

## '•A:;CPORTATIO N v-rr;p£RAT!0rJ 3

•• ^ 1^5 ^ SlO-110114-01 8 CONTRO L N O

Januai y 13,201 1 Hon . Bay LaHood , Secretar y U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 R£ : CoDtinuatio

D o f Alask aAirlines ' Essential Ai r Servic e a t

Cordova , Gustavus , Petersburg , Wraogell , an dYakutat , Alaska , Docke t OST-1998-4S9 9 Dea r Secretar y LaHood : Thi s lette r i s t o expres s ou r

stnm g suppor

t fo r th e selectio n o f

Alask aAirline s t o continu e t o provid e e^enda l ai r

servic e t o ou r

communis . Tb e dail y je t servic e Alask acurrentl y int>vide s t o C<»dovai s critical for th e continue dacces s an deconomi c wel l bein g our communit

y requires a s wel l a s tha

t o f thi s entir e regio n o f

th e state . Je t

servic e i s wha

t set s Cordov aapar

t fromothe r

rura l area s an dmake s u s aviabl e community . Alaska' s curren t

pattern o f

service , usin g je t

aircraft , meet s crucial need s tha t woul db e difGcuh , if

no t impossible , t o mee t

wit han y othe r

t>p e o f servic e o r

aircraf l type : Alaska' s servic e connect s Southeas t Alask apassenger s t o on e o r more major

communitie s o f

interest , wit

h single-plan e servic e t o Anchorage , Juneau , Ketchikan o r Seattle . Fro mthes e hubs , ou r communit

y can acces s th e airline' s extensiv e rout e syste man dbenefi t marketin g relationship s wit h othe r carriers . Th e 737-40 0 combmalio n passenge r an dcai^ o aircraft , %Wiic

h Alask aAirline s propose s t o continu e usin g o n thi s route , provide s freight, mai l an dcaig o capacity that anon-je t canie r simpl y canno t

provide . Further , th e 737-40 0 comb i aircraf t i s equippe dwit

hRequire dNavigatio n Ferfonnanc e Technolog y precisio n technology , whic h enable s th e airlin e t o reliabf y acces s th e airport

durin g inclem^ t

weather , thu s reducin g diversion s an dcancellation s and , i n turn , enablli ^ peopl e an dproduct s t o dependabl y reac h A e community . In sun t

Alaska' s je t

servic e i s critical t o th e economi c wel l bein g o f our commimity . Fo r thes e reasons ^ w e respectfbUy urg e DO T t o selec t Alask aAirline s t o continu e t o provid e essential ai r servic e t o Southeas t

Alaska , a s th e airlin e ha s successfully don e for more tha n thirty years . Smcerely , Pau l Kelly , Genera l Manager/CE O c : Susa

n Kurland , Assistan t

Secretar y fo r Aviatio n an dInternationa l Affair s Denni s DeVay . Chie ^ EAS an dDomesti c Analysi s Th e Honorabl e Sea n PameiU Governor , State o f Alask a Mar c A . Luiken , Commissioner , Alask aStat e Dep t o f Transportatio n & Publi c Facilitie s

P O Bu r4S g CordOvA , A K8967 4

Phone : gQ 7 42 4 234 5 Fw:gD 7 42A234 4
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 67 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 67


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

           Referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
Establishing the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    There is established a Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies (in this resolution referred to as the ``joint committee''), 
consisting of 3 Senators and 3 Members of the House of Representatives 
appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, respectively. The joint committee is authorized to 
make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the President-
elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

    The joint committee--
            (1) is authorized to utilize appropriate equipment and the 
        services of appropriate personnel of departments and agencies 
        of the Federal Government, under arrangements between the joint 
        committee and the heads of the departments and agencies, in 
        connection with the inaugural proceedings and ceremonies; and
            (2) may accept gifts and donations of goods and services to 
        carry out its responsibilities.

            Passed the Senate February 8 (legislative day, February 6), 
      2008.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
Exhibit 4.3


                             [Loehmann's Letterhead]


                                                                     May 1, 1998


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

                           Loehmann's, Inc. Form 10-K

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     In accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Loehmann's, Inc.
(the "Registrant") has not filed herewith any instrument with respect to
long-term debt not being registered where the total number of securities
authorized thereunder does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total assets of
the Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The Registrant
hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any such agreement to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.

                                       Sincerely,

                                       LOEHMANN'S, INC.

                                       By: /s/ Dennis Hernreich
                                       ------------------------
                                       Dennis Hernreich
                                       Title: VP Finance, Chief Financial
                                              Officer, Treasurer and Assistant
                                              Secretary
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Industri-Matematik AB et al., Appellants, and Fisher Scientific International, Inc., Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 462]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered March 15, 1999, which denied the petition pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) for a stay of arbitration of certain claims for fraud asserted by respondent against petitioners, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration clauses contained in the parties’ Services Agreements, apply to “any controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to” those agreements. Accordingly, since the fraud *81claims whose arbitration petitioners would stay indisputably relate to the enforceability of respondent’s obligations under the Services Agreements, the fraud claims were properly found to be arbitrable by the IAS Court *(see, Alsy Corp. v Gindel,*197 AD2d 492). Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
#### SHELLEY v STATE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22313.

Decided Nov 19, 1930

*754■ Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ, concur.
(81 South. 184)

#### JACKSON v. CITY OF MOBILE.

(1 Div. 300.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 21, 1919.)

Criminal Law <&wkey;>1186(7) — Appeal—Error in Sentence Only — Remand.

There being no error in the judgment of conviction, but only in the sentence, the former will be affirmed, the latter set aside and annulled, and the case remanded for proper sentence.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; N. R. Leigh, Jr., Judge.

John H. Jackson was prosecuted by the City of Mobile. On appeal from the recorder’s court he was convicted and sentenced, and he appeals.

Reversed as to sentence and remanded-

C. W. Tompkins, of Mobile, for appellant.

Robert H. Smith, of Mobile, for appellee.

BROWN, P. J.

This is a prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance, and originated in the recorder’s court of the city of Mobile. From the judgment of the recorder, an appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court, where the defendant was accorded a trial by jury. The verdict of the jury assessed the defendant's fine at $75, and, upon failure to pay the fine and costs, he was sentenced to hard labor for the city to pay the fine and costs. The court, as additional pun-., Ishment, sentenced him to six months’ hard labor, and in this committed error. Hannibal v. City of Mobile, ante, p. 625, 80 So. 629; Clark v. City of Uniontown, 4 Ala. App. 264, 58 South. 725.

There being no error in the judgment of conviction, that judgment will be affirmed; but the sentence is set aside and annulled and the cause remanded to the trial court for proper sentence In accordance with the law.

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.
Exhibit
32.1





STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Kathleen M. Jepson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.





/s/Kathleen
M. Jepson


Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


November
16, 2009
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7382

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERRICK GRATE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-93-161-A) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derrick Grate, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Hugh White, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on September 4, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on September 8, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Grate seeks to appeal the district court’s order declining to reconsider the order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). See Fed. R. Civ. P.60(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Grate , No. CR-93-161-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 1998). * We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Presidential Documents

31785

Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 98

Friday, May 19, 2000

Title 3—

The President

Executive Order 13156 of May 17, 2000

Amendment to Executive Order 12871 Regarding the

National Partnership Council

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for a uniform

policy for the Federal Government relating to labor-management partnerships,

it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12871, as amended by Executive

Order 12983, is further amended as follows:

Section 1. Section 1(a)(10) of the order is amended by striking ‘‘two’’ and

inserting ‘‘three.’’

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 17, 2000.

œ–

[FR Doc. 00–12840

Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE FIRST CAPITAL BANK HOLDING CORPORATION FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       9,848,330
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,777,493
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,370,268
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                    (366,177)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              10,777,493
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                38,854
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,854
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,553
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           26,301
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (175,539)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (175,539)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
(74 South. 1006)

#### CHRISTOPHER v. STATE.

(7 Div. 438.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 10, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; J. E. Blackwood, Judge.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
§ 2570.2 Definitions. For prohibited transaction penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of the definitions in § 18.2 of this title: ( a ) *Adjudicatory proceeding* means a judicial-type proceeding leading to the formulation of a final order;
( b ) *Administrative law judge* means an administrative law judge appointed pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3105;
( c ) *Answer* is defined for these proceedings as set forth in § 18.5(d)(2) of this title;
( d ) *Commencement of proceeding* is the filing of an answer by the respondent;
( e ) *Consent agreement* means any written document containing a specified proposed remedy or other relief acceptable to the Department and consenting parties;
( f ) *ERISA* means the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended;
( g ) *Final order* means the final decision or action of the Department of Labor concerning the assessment of a civil sanction under ERISA section 502(i) against a particular party. Such final order may result from a decision of an administrative law judge or the Secretary, or the failure of a party to invoke the procedures for hearings or appeals under this title. Such a final order shall constitute final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704;
( h ) *Hearing* means that part of a proceeding which involves the submission of evidence, either by oral presentation or written submission, to the administrative law judge;
( i ) *Notice* means any document, however designated, issued by the Department of Labor which initiates an adjudicatory proceeding under ERISA section 502(i);
( j ) *Order* means the whole or any part of a final procedural or substantive disposition of a matter under ERISA section 502(i);
( k ) *Party* includes a person or agency named or admitted as a party to a proceeding;
( l ) *Person* includes an individual, partnership, corporation, employee benefit plan, association, exchange or other entity or organization;
( m ) *Petition* means a written request, made by a person or party, for some affirmative action;
( n ) *Pleading* means the notice, the answer to the notice, any supplement or amendment thereto, and any reply that may be permitted to any answer, supplement or amendment;
( o ) *Prohibited transaction penalty proceeding* means a proceeding relating to the assessment of the civil penalty provided for in section 502(i) of ERISA;
( p ) *Respondent* means the party against whom the Department is seeking to assess a civil sanction under ERISA section 502(i);
( q ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor and includes, pursuant to any delegation of authority by the Secretary, any assistant secretary (including the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security), administrator, commissioner, appellate body, board, or other official;
( r ) *Solicitor* means the Solicitor of Labor or his or her delegate.
Seattle

- Tacoma International Airport

P.O. Box 68727

Seattle, WA 98168

USA

Tele: (206) 787

- 5388

Fax: (206) 787

- 5912

www.portseattle.org

March 30, 2010

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0018

Ms. Dorothy Beard

Chief, Docket Operations, M

- 30

U.S. Department of Transportation

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Letter of Support for Delta Air Lines ’ Proposed Seattle

- Haneda Route

Dear Ms. Beard:

Attached please find the Washington State Congressional Delegation letter in support of Delta Air Lines’

proposed Seattle

- Haneda service.

Please contact me at 206 787 6857 or at ishiwata.k@portseattle.org if you have any questions.

Respectfully submitted,

Kazue Ishiwata

Senior Manager, Air Service Development

Seattle

- Tacoma International Airport

Enclosures
#### Nicholas Lalli et al., Respondents, v Dorothy Tamasi et al., Appellants.

[698 NYS2d 276]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered January 20, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the failure of the plaintiff Nicholas Lalli to sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The medical evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment made out a prima facie case *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]) that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

The affirmed report by Dr. Christine Sapka, submitted in opposition to the motion, failed to indicate that the injured plaintiff’s injuries were “serious”, within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), or causally related to the accident *(see, Verrelli v Tronolone,*230 AD2d 789). In addition, the findings of Dr. Sapka, as set forth in her affirmed report, were based on only one examination which she conducted almost six years after the accident *(see, Verrelli v Tronolone, supra; LichtmanWilliams v Desmond,*202 AD2d 646).

Moreover, in light of the injured plaintiff’s admission in his affidavit that he missed a total of only 14 days of work as a result of the accident, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his injuries prevented him from performing “substantially all” of the material acts constituting his customary daily activities during at least 90 out of the first 180 days following the accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; *see, Letellier v Walker,*222 AD2d 658). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.