alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 3



Amendment to Bylaws as approved at the  December  15, 1997 Board  meeting of CFW
Communications Company:

Article  II,  Section  2.6  (Eligibility  for  Service  as a  Director)  of  the
Corporation's Bylaws is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted
in its place:

2.6 Eligibility for Service as a Director. No person who shall have attained the
age of 70 years shall be eligible for election as a Director of the Corporation.
Notwithstanding  the  foregoing,  any person who is serving as a Director of the
Company and who was serving as a Director of Clifton Forge-Waynesboro  Telephone
Company on April 28, 1986 who had  attained  the age of 70 on such date shall be
eligible for election and to serve until reaching age 80,  whereupon such person
shall retire, and any person who on such date had attained the age of 60 but was
under the age of 70 shall be eligible for  election and to serve until  reaching
age 75, whereupon such person shall retire.
#### Frederick Blodgett, *Respondent, v.*James A. Race, Appellant.—

Judgment and order reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Bockes, J.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Jacob H. Shaffer, Appellant. The City of New York, Respondent.

*Matter of Shaffer,*138 App. Div. 35, affirmed.

(Argued November 16, 1910;

decided December 6, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May *2,*1910, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for the reduction of an assessment for sewers on certain property in the borough of Brooklyn.

*520
      *Alexander McKinny*for appellant.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly*and *George L. Sterling*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AVONDALE
INDUSTRIES, INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          52,562
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,121
<PP&E>                                         290,175
<DEPRECIATION>                               (141,249)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 397,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,852
<BONDS>                                         48,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,967
<OTHER-SE>                                     194,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   397,202
<SALES>                                        748,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               748,936
<CGS>                                          664,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  664,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,406
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,415
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,991
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (2,046)
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.67
        

</TABLE>
From: sleepylaura@sbcglobal.net [mailto:sleepylaura@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:55 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Espinosa 

1517 Castro St 

Martinez, CA 94553
#### Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondent, *v.*James B. Beers et al., Appellants.

*Clement*v. *Beers,*134 App. Div. 962, affirmed.

(Submitted December 13, 1910;

decided January 3, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 5, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor, of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover on a liquor tax bond.

*Lucius A. Waldo*and *C. E. Hunter*for appellants.

*Albert O. Briggs*and *Herbert H. Kellogg*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, Werner, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ. Dissenting: Cullen, Ch. J., and Willard Bartlett, J.
Editorial Note on Part 195
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 195 appear at 71 FR 33409, June 9, 2006.

§ 195.408 Communications. ( a ) Each operator must have a communication system to provide for the transmission of information needed for the safe operation of its pipeline system.
( b ) The communication system required by paragraph (a) of this section must, as a minimum, include means for: ( 1 ) Monitoring operational data as required by § 195.402(c)(9);
( 2 ) Receiving notices from operator personnel, the public, and public authorities of abnormal or emergency conditions and sending this information to appropriate personnel or government agencies for corrective action;
( 3 ) Conducting two-way vocal communication between a control center and the scene of abnormal operations and emergencies; and
( 4 ) Providing communication with fire, police, and other appropriate public officials during emergency conditions, including a natural disaster.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert Y. Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Hydromer, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hydromer, Inc.

|                   |     |                                                      
|------------------ | --- | -----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2009 | By: | /s/ Robert Y. Lee,VP                                 
|                   |     | Robert Y. Lee                                        
|                   |     | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance





13
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1254-06-1 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 

WILLIAM K. FAVINGER 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Barry Dorans; Samuel W. Meekins, Jr.; Wolcott, Rivers, Gates, 

P.C., on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Gregory E. Camden; Charlene A. Morring; Montagna Klein 

Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellee. 

 Ford Motor Company (employer) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission awarding temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits to William K. Favinger 

(claimant) during certain periods of wage loss. Employer contends the commission erred in 

(1) awarding claimant TPD benefits for lost overtime where claimant failed to prove any wage 

loss causally related to his compensable injury; (2) finding that claimant had no duty to market 

his residual work capacity to recoup lost overtime; and (3) calculating claimant’s TPD benefits 

based upon the actual weekly wages he earned during certain weeks post-injury as opposed to 

the average weekly wages claimant was able to earn post-injury.1

 We have reviewed the record, 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Employer also argues that the commission should have averaged the wages claimant 

was able to earn post-injury during the twenty-one weeks shown on the wage chart and compare 

that average to his pre-injury average weekly wage in calculating his TPD benefits. Employer 

did not raise that particular argument before the commission in its petition for reconsideration 

when it addressed this issue. Accordingly, we will not consider that argument for the first time 

on appeal. See Rule 5A:18. 
- 2 - 

the commission’s December 10, 2004 review opinion, its January 6, 2005 order denying 

employer’s petition for reconsideration, and its April 24, 2006 opinion rendered upon remand 

from this Court, and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the commission in those opinions and order. See Favinger v. Ford Motor 

Company, VWC File No. 211-65-38 (Dec. 10, 2004 opinion, January 6, 2005 order, and April 

24, 2006 opinion). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
---

EXHIBIT 10 (z)(2)



Cleco Corporation
Supplemental Executive Retirement PlanParticipation Agreement

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Cleco Corporation (the "Committee") having the responsibility to administer the Cleco Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), and the responsibility thereunder to designate the participants in the Plan, does hereby certify that it has designatedSamuel H. Charlton, III to be a participant in the Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes.

This designation of participation is contingent upon the Participant's agreement to be bound by and subject to the terms and conditions of participation stated below.

1.           The Participant agrees to be bound by and to be subject to all the conditions and terms of the Plan and any rules or interpretations of the Plan adopted or promulgated thereunder by the Committee, and the Participant expressly acknowledges, agrees and consents to any interpretation and construction by the Committee of any provision of the Plan and the resolution by the Committee of any question or inquiry arising thereunder.2.           Pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Plan, the Participant shall become entitled to receive a benefit upon termination of employment prior to Early Retirement Age, notwithstanding the provisions set forth in Sections 3.1, 3.2, or 3.3 of the Plan, in accordance with the following schedule:Termination of Employment After:
Percentage of Vested BenefitNovember 1, 1998
20%November 1, 1999
40%November 1, 2000
60%November 1, 2001
80%November 1, 2002
100%3.           The Participant acknowledges that, as a condition to eligibility for a benefit under the Plan, he will be required to meet the requirements of Section 3.7 of the plan regarding the selection of a joint and 100% survivor annuity, if applicable.4.           The Participant acknowledges that, for purposes of determining his eligibility for a benefit under the Plan, his initial date of service with the company is November 1, 1997.




---



5.           The Participant acknowledges that his right to a benefit under the Plan is contingent upon full disclosure of benefits arising with respect to employment by any prior employers as described in Section 2.12 of the Plan.  The Participant represents that the following is a complete list of all benefits that are defined as "Other Pension Benefits" in the Plan:6.           The participant acknowledges that his eligibility for a benefit under the Plan is contingent upon the provision to the Committee by the Participant, or any person claiming benefits through the Participant, of all information and data that is required by the Committee to determine the amount of the benefit properly payable under the Plan including, without limitation, such information as the Committee may require with respect to any "Other Pension Benefits".I hereby agree to the foregoing terms of participation in the Plan:Samuel H. Charlton, IIISignature of ParticipantDateCLECO CORPORATIONBy:Catherine C. PowellSr. Vice President,Employee & Corporate Services


---
January 20, 2012 1 DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

MEMORANDUM

TO: Conrad Chin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS

FROM: Jeff Harris , Beth Friedman, EC /R

DATE : January 20 , 2012

SUBJECT: Determination of a Ratio for Estimating PM2.5 Emissions based on PM Emissions from

Ferroalloys Facilities

T he purpose of this memorandum is to describe available data regarding the ratio of PM2.5 emissions to PM emissions and their use in preparation of cost estimat es for revisions to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Ferroalloys Production source category.

During the development of the proposed Ferroalloys regulation, two documents and sources on the particle size distribut ion for the ferroalloys industry were reviewed and deemed to contain relevant data :

1) "Engineering and Cost Study of the Ferroalloy Industry" (EPA

- 450/2

- 74

- 008) , May 1974

This document includes information on particle size distr ibution from sources in the Ferroalloys industry, specifically on the particle size distribution from uncontrolled tapping of a silicomanganese furnace. Table D

- 5 (page D

- 13) cites the fractional weight distribution for four samples , with percentage of PM 2.5 ranging from 49% to 78%. Table 1 shows the data from this source , with additional calculations showing PM2.5 as a percentage of total PM emissions

. The percentage of PM2.5
range s from 49% to 78%.

2) "Emissions of particles, metals, dioxins and PAH in Sweden", Kindbom, et. al, for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2001.

This document contains particle size information specific to the ferroalloys industry, for a facility in Sweden. Data are reported for over twenty years, and include emissions of Total Particulate and PM2.5. Table 2 shows the data from this source, with additional calculations showing PM2.5 as a percentage of total PM emissions. The percentage of PM 2.5 is consistently 74

- 75%

.

Concl usion:

For the purposes of cost estimation, using a lower ratio of PM2.5 to TSP results in a more conservative estimate of the cost effectiveness of controls with respect to PM2.5. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate to select a PM2.5/TSP ratio at the lower end of the range in the cited data sources. For future cost estimates, we propose to use a PM2.5/TSP ratio of 50% for Ferroalloys facilities.January 20, 2012 2 DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
From: penfold5@verizon.net [mailto:penfold5@verizon.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:05 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Peter Isaacson 

12134 Bonavista Ln 

Whittier, CA 90604
#### Ex Parte Harvey Jones.

*No. 696.*

*Decided April 20.*

Court of Criminal Appeals — Jurisdiction — Certified Issues—Practice.—

Where, on appeal, in what purports to be a habeas corpus proceeding, it appears that no writ of habeas corpus was in fact sued out, and no order of the trial judge was in fact made, and that the object of the appeal is simply to certify a question to this court for decision, *Held,*that this court is without jurisdiction, and the proceedings will be dismissed.

This appears to be an attempt at appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas, in a case tried below before Hon. Charles F. Clint.

The opinion states the case.

*J. R. Cole, Jr.,*for relator.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

HENDERSON, Judge.

This is an attempt to prosecute an appeal from what we presume was a habeas corpus proceeding in the court below. The record appears to be some sort of an agreement by which it is proposed to certify to this court the point whether or not, in a conviction for theft of property under the value of $20, the punishment can be by a fine alone, without any imprisonment. In the agreed statement, after reciting certain things done in the court below, in paragraph 7 we find the following: “The foregoing facts are all the facts

necessary to be submitted to the Court of Appeals on the hearing of this cause, and it is agreed that the case may be determined on the above statement of facts, as though all the processes and formalities with regard to habeas corpus had been strictly complied with.” We gather from the whole statement that no writ of habeas corpus was in fact sued out, and no order of the judge was in fact made, and that the endeavor of the parties was simply to certify the point in issue to this court for decision. In our opinion, the procedure in this case does not give this court jurisdiction.

This proceeding is dismissed.

*Dismissed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
#### Milton Sutherland, *Respondent, v.*Adam Van Alstyne, *Appel*lant.—

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Potter, J.
VPRT Ex-10.1 9.30.13 10-Q








EXHIBIT 10.1
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 4 to Employment Agreement is entered into this September 1, 2013 by Vistaprint USA, Incorporated (the “Company”) and Robert S. Keane (the “Employee”). The Company and the Employee previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now wish to amend the Agreement further to reflect the Employee’s compensation for the Company’s 2014 fiscal year.
The parties agree as follows:
1.Compensation and Benefits.
1.1Salary.  The Company shall pay the Employee, in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices, an annualized base salary of $123,071 (approximate, based on the 30-day trailing average currency exchange rate in effect at May 29, 2013) for the one-year period commencing on July 1, 2013. 
1.2FY 2014 Incentive Compensation.  The Employee is entitled to receive the bonuses, incentive awards, and equity compensation awards for the Company’s fiscal year 2014 described on Schedule A.
1.3Withholding.  All salary, bonus, and other compensation payable to the Employee is subject to applicable withholding taxes.
2.No Other Modification.  Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.
The parties have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above
.	
					
	 
	 
	VISTAPRINT USA, INCORPORATED

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	/s/    Michael C Greiner
	 

	 
	 
	Title:
	Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EMPLOYEE
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	/s/    Robert S. Keane
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Robert S. Keane
	 































SCHEDULE A


Incentive Compensation Payable by the Company for fiscal year 2014


Annual incentive, pursuant to the terms of the Employee’s award agreement under the Vistaprint Performance Incentive Plan for Covered Employees, with a target amount of $981,968 (approximate, based on the 30-day trailing average currency exchange rate in effect at May 29, 2013) subject to the satisfaction of the performance criteria set forth in such award agreement.
###### Editorial Note on Part 173

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

#### § 173.160 Bombs, smoke, non-explosive (corrosive).

Bombs, smoke, non-explosive may be shipped provided they are without ignition elements, bursting charges, detonating fuses or other explosive components. They must be packaged in metal (4A, 4B, 4N), wooden (4C1, 4C2), plywood (4D), or reconstituted wood (4F), fiberboard (4G) or solid plastic (4H2) boxes, or metal (1A2, 1B2, 1N2), plastic (1H2), plywood drums (1D), or fiber (1G) drums that meet Packing Group II requirements.

[78 FR 1085, Jan. 7, 2013]
-----Original Message----- 

From: mikeandjog@comcast.net [mailto:mikeandjog@comcast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:21 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Josephine/Michael Giacchino 

430 South Arthur Drive 

Edgewater Park (Beverly P.O).), NJ 08010
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, July 25, 1995 (101), Para 101.34 Memorials]
[Page 1194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.101.34  memorials

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII,

       143. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the 
     State of New York, relative to supporting ratification of the 
     U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 
     Discrimination Against Women; to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
```