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










AMENDMENT TO 
EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Executive Employment Agreement dated July 23, 2016 and effective as of July 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement"), between Canadian Pacific Railway Company (the “Company”) and Keith Creel (the “Executive”), is dated as of January 31, 2017.
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and understandings set forth herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Capitalized Terms.  Except as defined herein, capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.


		
	2.
	 Effective Date.  The first recital on page 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete the date of "July 1, 2017" and replace it with "January 31, 2017".


		
	3.
	Performance Options. Section 2(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


		
	a.
	The phrase "Effective Date" in the first sentence of paragraph 2(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement is deleted and replaced with "February 1, 2017".


		
	b.
	The date of "July 1, 2022" in the last sentence of paragraph 2(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement is deleted and replaced with "February 1, 2022".


		
	c.
	Section 2(b)(ii) of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety.


		
	4.
	Long Term Incentive Plan. Section 2(d) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete "2018" and replace it with "2017".


		
	5.
	Term, Termination and Effects of Agreement. All references to the date of "July 1, 2022" in the Employment Agreement, including the references to the date of "July 1, 2022" in Sections 9 (b)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv) and (v) of the Employment Agreement are deleted and replaced with "February 1, 2022".


		
	6.
	Continuing Effect of Employment Agreement.  Except as expressly modified hereby, the provisions of the Employment Agreement are and shall remain in full force and effect.


		
	7.
	Governing Law.  This amendment shall in all respects be subject to, and governed by, the laws of the Province of Alberta without giving effect to its conflict of laws principles.


		
	8.
	Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.




 












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first written above.




CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY


Per:    /s/ Andrew Reardon                
Name: Andrew Reardon
Title:   Chair, Board of Directors    




By:    /s/ Isabelle Courville                
Name: Isabelle Courville
Title:   Director and Chair, MRCC






/s/ Cheryl Parks                    /s/ Keith Creel                    
Witness                        Keith Creel




     Cheryl Parks            
 
Witness Name
No. 11-9064.

#### Rizzo *v.*City of Wheaton, Illinois, et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 171-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/25/2023 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41466-41467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16834]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than July 19, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. James Steve Daniels, Livingston, Tennessee; to retain voting 
shares of American BancShares Corporation, Livingston, Tennessee, and 
thereby indirectly retain voting shares of

[[Page 41467]]

American Savings Bank, Livingston, Tennessee.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Perry B. Hansen, The Woodlands, Texas; Douglas M. Kratz, The 
Woodlands, Texas; and Francis P. McCarthy, Bettendorf, Iowa; to acquire 
voting shares of Second Mid-America Bancorp, Inc., Savanna, Illinois, 
and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Illinois National 
Bank, Savanna, Illinois.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 28, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-16834 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### § 17.56 Maintenance of lighting equipment.

Replacing or repairing of lights, automatic indicators or automatic control or alarm systems shall be accomplished as soon as practicable.

[79 FR 56986, Sept. 24, 2014]
§ 16.5 Technical and economic feasibility. ( a ) Where the Commission determines that a covered entity's policy or practice is motivated by discriminatory intent on the basis of income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin, the entity will not be found liable for digital discrimination of access if the policy or practice is justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility.
( b ) Where the Commission determines that a covered entity's policy or practice has discriminatory effects on the basis of income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin, the entity will not be found liable for digital discrimination of access if the policy or practice is justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility.
( c ) Covered entities have the burden of proving to the Commission that a policy or practice under investigation is justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility. This may include proof that available, less discriminatory alternatives were not reasonably achievable at the time the policy or practice was adopted, implemented, or utilized because of genuine technical or economic constraints.
( d ) Genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, with the covered entity providing the Commission all of the empirical evidence and documentation needed to substantiate the technical or economic justifications for the policy or practice under investigation.
( e ) The Commission will determine on a case-by-case basis whether genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility justified the adoption, implementation, or utilization of a policy or practice that was motivated by discriminatory intent on the basis of income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin, or that caused discriminatory effects on one or more of these bases.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.3.3
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
 1993 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN
          The Trinity Industries, Inc. 1993 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”), is hereby amended by this Amendment No. 3, effective as of July 16, 1997.
          Any term which is not defined below shall have the meaning set forth for such term in the Plan.
          24. Maximum Compensation of an Employee. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Plan, on and after July 16, 1997 the maximum number of Shares for which grants of stock options and Stock Appreciation Rights may be made to an employee in any fiscal year of the Company shall not exceed one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total number of Shares of the Company outstanding on March 31, 1997, and the exercise price of any stock option or Stock Appreciation Right granted on and after July 16, 1997 shall in no event be less than the Fair Market Value of the Shares at the time of the grant.
          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company as of the day and year first above written.
	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	 
	/s/ W. Ray Wallace
§ 105-72.406 Intangible property. ( a ) The recipient may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed, or for which ownership was purchased, under an award. The Federal awarding agency(ies) reserve a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so.
( b ) Recipients are subject to applicable regulations governing patents and inventions, including governmentwide regulations issued by the Department of Commerce at 37 CFR part 401, “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements.”
( c ) Unless waived by the Federal awarding agency, the Federal Government has the right to paragraph (c)(1) and (2) of this section. ( 1 ) Obtain, reproduce, publish or otherwise use the data first produced under an award.
( 2 ) Authorize others to receive, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such data for Federal purposes.
( d ) Title to intangible property and debt instruments acquired under an award or subaward vests upon acquisition in the recipient. The recipient shall use that property for the originally-authorized purpose, and the recipient shall not encumber the property without approval of the Federal awarding agency. When no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, disposition of the intangible property shall occur in accordance with the provisions of § 105-72.404(g).
No. 10-11017.

#### Dillbeck *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-11173.

#### Ault *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
### Is the Material a Traditional Fuel?

Is the Material Managed within the Control of the

Generator? Material is Not a Waste



### Does the Material Satisfy the Legitimacy Criteria? Has the Material Been Discarded in the First Instance (i.e. abandoned, disposed, thrown away )?

Is the material managed as a valuable commodity? Does the material have a meaningful heating value? Does the material contain contaminants at levels comparable to or

lower than traditional fuels which the combustion unit is designed to burn ? Secondary Material is

a Waste

Secondary Material is Not a Waste YES

NO TO ONE YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES TO ALL Secondary Material is a Waste unless Administrator has granted a

non-waste determination Has the Material Been Sufficiently Processed? NO

YES 

### Flow Chart for Determining Whether Non-Hazardous Materials Used as Fuel In Combusti on Units are Solid Waste

Secondary Material is a Waste (Sham Recycled and therefore considered

to be “disposed”)
9 June 2016

121A16

#### State v. Damario Montreal Coxton

1. Defs Notice of Appeal Based upon a Constitutional Question (COA15-575)

1. Special Order

2. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

2. Special Order
#### § 60-30.1 Applicability of rules.

This part provides the rules of practice for all administrative proceedings, instituted by the OFCCP including but not limited to proceedings instituted against construction contractors or subcontractors, which relate to the enforcement of equal opportunity under Executive Order 11246, as amended. In the absence of a specific provision, procedures shall be in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4307

To amend title 35, United States Code, with respect to applications for

process patents.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 28, 1994

Mr. HUGHES (for himself, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr.

BOUCHER, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. FISH, and Mr. COBLE) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 35, United States Code, with respect to

applications for process patents.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXAMINATION OF PROCESS PATENT APPLICA4 TIONS FOR OBVIOUSNESS.

5 Section 103 of title 35, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by designating the first paragraph as sub8 section (a);

9 (2) by designating the second paragraph as

10 subsection (c); and
2

•HR 4307 IH

1 (3) by inserting after the first paragraph the

2 following:

3 ‘‘(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a process

4 using or resulting in a product that is novel under section

5 102 and nonobvious under subsection (a) of this section,

6 shall be considered nonobvious if—

7 ‘‘(A) claims to the process and the product are

8 contained in either the same application for patent

9 or in separate applications having the same effective

10 filing date; and

11 ‘‘(B) the product, and the process at the time

12 it was invented, were owned by the same person or

13 subject to an obligation of assignment to the same

14 person.

15 ‘‘(2) A patent issued on a process under paragraph

16 (1)—

17 ‘‘(A) shall also contain the claims to the prod18 uct used in or made by that process, or

19 ‘‘(B) shall, if such product is claimed in another

20 patent, be set to expire on the same date as such

21 other patent.’’.

22 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

23 The amendments made by section 1 shall apply to

24 any application for patent filed on or after the date of

25 the enactment of this Act and to any application for pat-
3

•HR 4307 IH

1 ent pending on such date of enactment, including (in ei2 ther case) an application for the reissuance of a patent.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0094

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOEL WESLEY SPEISER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 7, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 3 2024

09/03/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0094
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3354]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Egyptian Art at Eton College: Selections from the 
Myers Museum''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby determine that the 
objects to be included in the exhibition ``Egyptian Art at Eton 
College: Selections from the Myers Museum,'' imported from abroad for 
the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are 
of cultural significance. These objects are imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with a foreign lender. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
New York, NY from on or about September 25, 2000 to on or about January 
21, 2001, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office 
of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-
5997). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, 
SW, Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: June 23, 2000.
William B. Bader,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 00-16769 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
792 A.2d 410

#### IN THE MATTER OF DAVID S. BRANTLEY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 235381970).

March 21, 2002.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 00-331, recommending that DAVID S. BRANTLEY of EAST ORANGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, be disbarred for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(a) (failure to communicate), *RPC*1.5 (failure to communicate basis of fee in writing), *RPC*1.16(d) (failure to return unearned retainer), and *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and said DAVID S. BRANTLEY having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DAVID S. BRANTLEY is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court, effective April 15, 2002; and it is further

*81ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
EXHIBIT 10.5


 




AMENDMENT NO. 5


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT












THIS AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is effective as of February 10, 2017 (the “Effective Date”), by and between U.S. Geothermal Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Jonathan Zurkoff (“Employee”).


 


RECITALS







WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement with a term from December 31, 2010 until March 31, 2013 (the “Agreement”).







WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into a series of amendments to the Agreement, each providing for a one-year extension of the Agreement in addition to other amendments to the Agreement.







WHEREAS, the Agreement, as previously amended, is in effect until March 31, 2017.







WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend and extend the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in the Agreement and this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as follows:







1. Term.  The term of the Agreement as set forth in Section 2 of the Agreement, is hereby extended and will remain in full force and effect until March 31, 2018.


2. Savings Clause.  Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement, as previously amended, shall remain in full force and effect, and is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.


[signature page follows]


1
















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment on February 10, 2017.







U.S. Geothermal Inc.


a Delaware corporation












By: /s/ Kerry D. Hawkley                 


Name: Kerry D. Hawkley


Title: CFO












SIGNED by the Employee in the presence of:















	
 /s/ Dennis J. Gilles


Witness

	
/s/ Jonathan Zurkoff


Jonathan Zurkoff

	







  







Dennis J. Gilles


__________________________


Printed Name of Witness


 


2
035PA12-2

#### Connie Chandler, Employee, by her Guardian ad Litem, Celeste M. Harris v. Atlantic Scrap & Processing, 'Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier

1. Defs’ Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1351)

1. Allowed 01/06/2016

2. Defs’ Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*

3. Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1302: MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED v. SANOFI MATURE IP [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PohBX12keP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-15-2021-20-1302-mylan-laboratories-limited-v-sanofi-mature-ip-rule-36-judgment-20-1302-rule_36_judgment-1-15-2021_1718184\/\">20-1302: MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED v. SANOFI MATURE IP [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-15-2021-20-1302-mylan-laboratories-limited-v-sanofi-mature-ip-rule-36-judgment-20-1302-rule_36_judgment-1-15-2021_1718184\/embed\/#?secret=PohBX12keP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1302: MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED v. SANOFI MATURE IP [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"PohBX12keP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED v. SANOFI MATURE IP [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1302 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}