alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(a)(a)(3)

(Form for Senior V. P.)

CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.

NOTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATION

2011 MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE COMPENSATION BONUS PROGRAM



This confirms that ______________ (you) have been
designated a participant in the 2011 management incentive compensation bonus program (the Program) of Cybex International, Inc. (Cybex) adopted by the Cybex Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors pursuant to
Section 9 of the 2005 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan.

Pursuant to the Program, you will be eligible for a bonus
equal to the indicated percentage of your base salary, in the event that the 2011 operating income of Cybex (before taking into account bonuses payable under the Program) equals or exceeds the indicated level as set by the Cybex Compensation
Committee:



|                          |  |                 
|------------------------- |  | ----------------
|Percentage of Base Salary |  | Operating Income
|                          | 
|10%                       |  | Threshold       
|                          | 
|30%                       |  | Target          
|                          | 
|60%                       |  | Maximum         

The Program is
subject to such rules, policies and procedures as may be from time to time adopted by the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee acting on behalf of the Board of Directors, including the requirement that at the time that the bonus becomes
payable you are employed in good standing with Cybex. In the event that a bonus is paid to you hereunder and subsequently Cybex is required to prepare an accounting restatement, pursuant to which such bonus would not have been earned, in whole or in
part, you agree that you may be required to reimburse Cybex the amount of over-payment, as mandated by the then effective policies of Cybex or by statute, regulation or stock exchange rule.

The bonus will be payable, if at all, within thirty days after receipt by Cybex of its audited financial statements for 2011. As an
Executive Officer, any bonus to you will be payable 75% in cash and 25% in restricted stock, with the restricted stock vesting in three equal annual installments commencing with the first anniversary of the bonus payment date.

Eligibility to participate in the Program does not restrict Cybex from discharging you from employment or increasing or decreasing your
compensation, nor does it restrict you from resigning your employment. Your participation in this program supersedes, replaces in full, and is in lieu of, any understanding, commitment or agreement (whether written, oral, express or implied) with
respect to incentive compensation related to 2011 performance which might otherwise be or become payable to you, other than stock options which have been or may be granted to you. All calculations, determinations and interpretations under this
Program shall be made solely by the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee acting on behalf of the Board of Directors.



---

Dated: February , 2011





CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.By:
#### § 516.0 Display of OMB control numbers.

| Subpart or section where information collection requirement is located | Currently assigned OMB Control No. |
| --- | --- |
| Subpart A | 1235-0018 |
| Subpart B | 1235-0018 |
| 516.31 also discussed in | 1235-0001 |

[[82 FR 2227](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/82-FR-2227), Jan. 9, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12124
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3508
<OTHER-SE>                                      (15632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2167)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)


</TABLE>
[673 NE2d 1238, 657 NYS2d 11]

#### In the Matter of Jeanine Pirro, as District Attorney of Westchester County, Respondent, v Caesar Cirigliano, as Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, et al., Appellants.

Argued September 5, 1996;

decided October 10, 1996

*1034APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General,*New York City *(Michael O. Hueston, Thomas Hughes*and *Victoria A. Graffeo*of counsel), for Caesar Cirigliano, as Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, appellant.

*Bennet Goodman,*Yonkers, for Cesar Ramirez, appellant.

*Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney*of Westchester County, White Plains *(Richard E. Weill*of counsel), respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Judgment affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (226 AD2d 465).

*1035Concur: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20622]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt, LP., as a Commercial 
Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt, LP., as an 
approved commercial gauger and accredited laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Saybolt, LP., 414 Weschester, Corpus Christi, TX 78469, has 
been approved to gauge and test petroleum and petroleum products for 
customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 
and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct 
laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive 
written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by 
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or 
gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the 
specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved 
to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by 
calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#325150421c5e53505a4372565a411c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b18190b55171a19130a3b1f1308551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operationssupport/labsscientificsvcs/commercial gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Saybolt, LP., Inc., Corpus 
Christi, TX, as commercial gauger and accredited laboratory became 
effective on April 6, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be 
scheduled for April 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Cousins, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: August 5, 2011.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-20622 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 500.264 Procedures for initiating review. ( a ) Within twenty (20) days after the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, the respondent, the Administrator, or any other party desiring review thereof, may file with the Administrative Review Board (Board) a petition for issuance of a Notice of Intent as described under § 500.265. The petition shall be in writing and shall contain a concise and plain statement specifying the grounds on which review is sought. A copy of the Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge shall be attached to the petition.
( b ) Copies of the petition shall be served upon all parties to the proceeding and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
[54 FR 13330, Mar. 31, 1989, as amended at 86 FR 1786, Jan. 11, 2021]
IIA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 40 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing 

the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the 

flag of the United States and to set criminal penalties for that act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2008 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United 

States and to set criminal penalties for that act. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following article is proposed as an amendment 

4 to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 

5 valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitu6 tion when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of 

7 the several States within seven years after the date of its 

8 submission by the Congress: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 40 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘The Congress and the States shall have power to 

3 prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United 

4 States and to set criminal penalties for that act.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20444 Conference Calendar

EDWARD S. HODGES, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BRADLEY SMITH; BILL R. TURNER; JIM W. JAMES; JOHN M. DELANEY; MICHAEL R. HOESCHOLER; BRAZOS COUNTY COMM’RS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-5020

- - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edward S. Hodges, III (#313950), appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. “[C]ivil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.” See Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Hodges’s claims call into question the validity of his conviction and sentence and may not be considered in a § 1983 action under the rule in Heck because Hodges has notNo. 96-20444 - 2 - demonstrated that his conviction and sentence have been invalidated. Even though this complaint is subject to dismissal under Heck , “it remains appropriate for district courts to consider the possible applicability of the doctrine of absolute immunity.” Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Defendants Jim James, Bill Turner, Bradley Smith, and John Delaney are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages in § 1983 actions arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their prosecutorial and judicial functions. Boyd , 31 F.3d at 284 (prosecutorial immunity); Graves v. Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1993) (judicial immunity). Finally, we note that Hodges’s claim against his appointed trial counsel, Michael R. Hoescholer, does not involve state action and is not cognizable under § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 321-22, 325 (1981). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous. Booker v. Koonce , 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Hodges that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Hodges is further cautioned to review all pendingNo. 96-20444 - 3 - appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### VOLLHARDT, et v NORWOOD SASH & DOOR MFG CO

Ohio. Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No 3545.

Decided Feb. 17, 1930

Jackson A. Sparrow, Cincinnati, and Frank A. Roberts, Steubenville, for Vollhardt, et.

Malcolm McAvoy and D. R. Tate, both of Cincinnati, for Sash & Door Co.

*666ROSS, J.

While the proceeding to enforce the mechanic’s lien is governed by statute, it has been repeatedly held that such cause of a'ction is equitable in its nature.

The allegations of the petition, unquestionably, if proved, would taint the transaction involved with fraud. It is not necessary that the word “fraud” be used in the pleadings, if the allegations state fraud. This being the case, the court considering the application of a remedy in equity, confronted with allegations in the petition amounting to a charge of fraud, should be most liberal in the admission of evidence which would disclose all the incidents pertinent to the entire transaction.

The Vollhardts proved that Mor,an was an agent, and they sought, by introducing evidence of his statements, to substantiate the allegations of the petition. In this attempt, ' it was indicated, they were frustrated by the court, who took the view that such evidence could not be introduced, because it would, vary the terms of a written contract by parol evidence. A proffert was made which shows substantially that such evidence was sought to be introduced.

Counsel for plaintiff in error have quoted from 2 Corpus Juris, 938, and we adopt the latter portion of this quotation as follows, and as being particularly applicable to the facts in this case.'

“Thus, where the agency has been established by independent evidence, the declarations of the agent are competent to show that he acted as agent and not on his individual account, or to show- the nature and extent of his authority, x x ”

It would seem somewhat .difficult to ascertain whether statements were made within the scope of employment, or authorized until the court knew what were the statements to be so tested. The court, by excluding the statements made by the admitted agent of the Company completly destroyed the defense, which may or may not have been a valid defense according as the facts developed authority to make the statements.

We think, therefore, that the exclusion of *667the evidence was such prejudicial error as will require a reversal of the judgment, and we so hold.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Cushing, PJ, and Hamilton, J, concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 24, 2018

No. 04-17-00565-CV

David MORA, Texas Sterling Construction Co. a/k/a Texas Crushed Concrete, and Sterling 

Construction Company, Inc. a/k/a Sterling Delaware Holding Company, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Martin VALDIVIA Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, both Individually and as Sole Heirs of the 

Estate of Martin Valdivia Jr., Deceased,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CI09734

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After this court granted Appellants’ second motion for extension of time to file the brief, 

we set Appellants’ brief due on July 30, 2018. Before the due date, Appellants filed an 

unopposed third motion for extension to file Appellants’ brief. Appellants request an additional 

fourteen days.

Appellants’ motion is GRANTED. Appellants’ brief is due on August 13, 2018. Any 

further motion for extension of time to file Appellants’ brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### § 779.352 Requirements for exemption.

The requirements of the exemption are: (a) The establishment in which the employee or proprietor works must qualify as an exempt retail or service establishment under section 13(a)(2) of the Act; (b) the employee or proprietor must be engaged in handling telegraphic messages for the public pursuant to an agency or contract arrangement with a telegraph company; (c) such employee or proprietor must be one to whom the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Act would not apply in the absence of such handling of telegraphic messages (See *Western Union Tel. Co.* v. *McComb* 165 F. 2d. 65 (CA-6), certiorari denied, 333 U.S. 362); and (d) the exemption applies only where the telegraphic message revenue does not exceed $500 a month. For purposes of this exemption only, in determining whether a retail or service establishment meets the percentage tests contained in section 13(a)(2) of the Act, the receipts from the telegraphic message agency will not be included.
Exhibit
32.2





Section 906
Certification





The
following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Form 10-Q of
the MLM Index TM Fund pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. 1350).





The
undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the MLM Index TM Fund.








October
31, 2008





By: /s/JamesA.Mehling


Vice
President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Mount
Lucas Management Corporation,


the
manager of the MLM Index TM Fund
#### § 779.382 May qualify as exempt 13(a)(2) establishments.

A hotel or motel establishment may qualify as an exempt retail or service establishment under section 13(a)(2) of the Act. However, the establishment must meet all of the requirements of section 13(a)(2) (see § 779.337). In determining whether an establishment is a retail or service establishment within the meaning of section 13(a)(2) the dollar volume received from the leasing or rental of space to other than transient members of the general public cannot be counted as derived from retail sales of goods or services. Therefore, receipts from tenants who are not transient guests (see § 779.383(c)) must be included in the 25 percent tolerance provided for sales for resale or sales not recognized as retail.
## QuickLinks

## 

Exhibit 24-a

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints each of William J. Cadogan, Robert E. Switz and Jeffrey D.
Pflaum, with full power to each to act without the other, his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead,
in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (the "Company") for the Company's fiscal year ended October 31, 1999, and any or all
amendments to said Annual Report, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to file the same with
such other authorities as necessary, granting unto each such attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each such attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitute,
may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed on this 30th day of December, 1999, by the following persons.

|                                               |  |                                                 
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Blanchard IIIJohn A. Blanchard III |  | /s/ John J. Boyle IIIJohn J. Boyle III          
|/s/ William J. CadoganWilliam J. Cadogan       |  | /s/ James C. Castle, Ph.D.James C. Castle, Ph.D.
|/s/ Thomas E. HolloranThomas E. Holloran       |  | /s/ B. Kristine JohnsonB. Kristine Johnson      
|/s/ Alan E. RossAlan E. Ross                   |  | /s/ Jean-Pierre RossoJean-Pierre Rosso          
|/s/ John W. SidgmoreJohn W. Sidgmore           |  | /s/ John D. WunschJohn D. Wunsch                
|Charles D. Yost                                |  |                                                 
|                                               |  |                                                 



## QuickLinks

Exhibit 24-aPOWER OF ATTORNEY