alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3COM CORPORATION
STAND ALONE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 Employment Agreement
 Definitions
 Administrator
 Applicable Laws
 Award
 Award Agreement
 Board
 Cause
      Investigation
 -1-




---



##### 



Change in Control
    Incumbent Directors
 Code
 Committee
 Common Stock
 Company
 Consultant
 2




---



##### 



Date of Option Grant
 Director
 Disability
 Employee
 Exchange Act
 Exercise Price
 Good Reason
      3




---



##### 



In Connection with a Change of Control
 Initial Vesting Date
 Nonstatutory Stock Option
 Notice of Grant
 Number of Option Shares
  Officer
 Option
 Optioned Stock
 Option Termination Date
 Parent
 Person
 Service Provider
 Share
 Subsidiary
 Vested Ratio
 Vested RatioPrior to Initial Vesting Date
    
    
    0On Initial Vesting Date, for each full year of the Participants remaining a Service
Provider from the Date of Option Grant until the Initial Vesting Date
    
    
    1/4PlusFor each subsequent full year thereafter of the Participants remaining a Service
Provider from the Initial Vesting Date
    
    
    1/4In no event shall the Vested Ratio exceed 1/1.
 4




---



##### 



Grant of Option
 Exercise of the Option
 Right to Exercise
 5




---



##### 



Method of Exercise
 Form of Payment of Option Price
 Withholding
 Certificate Registration
 Restriction on Grant of Option and Issuance of Shares
 6




---



##### 



Fractional Shares
 Survival of Award Agreement Provisions
 Non-Transferability of the Option
 Termination of the Option
 Termination of the Participants Relationship as a Service Provider .
 Termination of the Option
 Disability of Optionee
 Extension of Option Exercise Period
 7




---



##### 



Change in Status
 Exercise Prevented by Applicable Laws
 Leaves of Absence st
 Rights as a Shareholder or Employee
 No Guarantee of Continued Service
 Adjustments Upon Changes in Capitalization, Dissolution, Liquidation or
Change of Control
 8




---



##### 



Changes in Capitalization
 Dissolution or Liquidation
 Change of Control
 Conditions Upon Issuance of Shares
 Legal Compliance
 9




---



##### 



Investment Representations
 Inability to Obtain Authority
 Legends
 Binding Effect
 Amendment or Termination
 Entire Agreement; Applicable Law
 Notices
 10




---



##### 



PARTICIPANT
    
    3COM CORPORATION/s/ Ronald A. Sege
Ronald A. Sege
President and COO
    
    /s/ Neal D. Goldman
Neal D. Goldman
Executive Vice President and Chief Legal and 
Administrative Officer5/16/08

Date
    
    Date
 11
Hillsborough,

May 5, 1914.

#### Ira W. Holt, *Adm’r, v.*Mary J. Burns *& a.*

Whore a will gives the testator’s widow “property to the amount of five thousand dollars, to be selected by her at its appraised value from the balance of my estate, ” she has the right to demand and receive the avails of an insurance policy which, by reason of the death of the insured in her lifetime, became a part of the residue.

Bill in Equity, asking advice as to the plaintiff’s duty under the will of George W. Burns. Transferred without a ruling from the September term, 1913, of the superior court by *Kivel,*J.

The fourth clause of the will gave to Mary J. Burns, widow of the testator, his homestead place in Milford and a policy of insurance on his life, and further provided as follows: “ Should my said wife not survive Charles H. Coggin, on whose life I hold policy No. 180,499 in the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, I give and bequeath to my then legal heirs and to my said wife’s legal heirs the proceeds of said policy in equal shares.” By the sixth clause, the testator gave to his wife “property to the amount of five thousand dollars, to be selected by her at its appraised value *272from the balance of my estate.” Any balance then remaining was disposed of by a residuary clause.

The testator died in 1899, and Charles H. Coggin in 1913. The amount due under the policy ($1,698.24) has been paid to the plaintiff. The widow has received $1,747.18 under the sixth clause. In 1905, the executors delivered to the widow the policy referred to, and it is found' as a fact that she has selected the proceeds of the policy as a part of the five thousand dollars under the sixth clause. The petitioner asks the advice of the court upon the question whether the widow is entitled to select the policy or the proceeds thereof under the sixth clause.

*Kittredge & Prescott,*for the plaintiff.

Defendants *pro se.*

Walker, J.

As the widow survived Charles H. Coggin, the condition of her non-survival, upon which the bequest in the fourth clause of the will of the policy of insurance upon his life was based, did not occur, and the bequest for that reason did not take effect. Upon Coggin’s death in 1913, the proceeds of the policy, which were paid to the plaintiff, became a part of “the balance of my estate” within the meaning of the sixth cláuse; and the widow was entitled to select the whole of that sum. toward the payment of the legacy of five thousand dollars given to her in that clause. The testator ’s intention to give his wife five thousand dollars by this clause is apparent. According to the facts reported in the case, she has received on this account $1,748.18, which added to the proceeds of the insurance, amounting to $1,698.24, would be insufficient to carry out in full the testator’s intention.

The plaintiff is advised, therefore, that the widow has the right under the will to demand and receive the insurance money in the plaintiff’s hands.

*Case discharged.*

All concurred.
EXHIBIT 32.1



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Matthiessen, President and Chief Executive 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.
Date:	November 10, 2006

/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
Robert E. Matthiessen
President and Chief Executive Officer
From: littleblue3car@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B) and then

NOT covering safe family planning products like LadyComp which is just as effective and with NO drugs.

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Laura Phillilps

Herndon, VA 20170
EXHIBIT
23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





BOARD OF
DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF FIRST KEYSTONE CORPORATION:





We
consent to the use of our reports dated March 12, 2010, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of First Keystone Corporation and Subsidiary as of
December 31, 2009, and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders’ equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2009, management’s report on internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports are included
herein.





/s/ J. H. Williams & Co.,
      LLPJ.
      H. Williams & Co., LLP





March 12,
2010


Kingston,
Pennsylvania
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATE OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION I, Everett R. Dobson, Chief Executive Officer of Dobson Communications
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
March 31, 2004, (the Report):  a.
    
    complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and thatb.
    
    the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company at March 31, 2004,
and the results of the Companys operations for the
three months ended March 31, 2004. May 10, 2004 /S/ EVERETT R. DOBSONEverett R. DobsonChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19827]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 7, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 52 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-263, CP2023-266.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-19827 Filed 9-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### In the Matter of the Houston Street, West Street and Pavonia Ferry Railway Company.

Report confirmed.
Hillsborough,

April 6, 1915.

#### William Bassett, Jr., *v.*Clarence H. Dodge *& a.*

Case, for negligently burning the plaintiff’s buildings. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants’ motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict were denied, and they excepted. Transferred from the May term, 1914, of the superior court on a bill of exceptions allowed by *Pike,*C. J.

The defendants drilled a shallow hole in a stone which was located a few yards from an old mill, loaded it with dynamite, and exploded the charge with a fuse. The force of the explosion threw the fuse upon the roof of the mill, and the fire which resulted was communicated to the plaintiff’s property.

*Taggart, Burroughs, Wyman & McLane (Mr. Wyman*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Branch & Branch*and *Nathaniel E. Martin (Frederick W. Branch*orally), for the defendants.

Young, J.

The evidence that it is not uncommon for such a blast to throw the fuse as far as this one was thrown, or for the fuse to contain fire, and that it sometimes contains fire enough to ignite inflammable materials, warrants the finding that the defendants ought to have known that if they exploded the blast at the time and in the way they did they might set the mill on fire. Therefore, the question whether they were in fault depends upon whether the ordinary man would have exploded such a blast, in such a place, in such a way, on such a day, without doing anything whatever to protect the plaintiff’s buildings; and that was for the jury.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1995 and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the twelve months ended December 31, 1995 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           4,249
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  267,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,234
<INVENTORY>                                    196,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               468,002
<PP&E>                                          29,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 508,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          243,047
<BONDS>                                        123,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,000
<COMMON>                                           441
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   508,704
<SALES>                                      1,334,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,441,597
<CGS>                                        1,193,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,266,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 20, 2020

a0513 

# Order

Clerk May 20, 2020

160726

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160726

COA: 350791

Roscommon CC: 18

- 008042

- FH

JASON WARREN BRACKNEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal th e October 31, 2019

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the Court’s order denying defendant’s a pplication for leave to appeal.

I write separately, however, to express that such denial is without prejudice to

defendant’s ability to file a motion for relief from judgment under MCR Subchapter

6.500 based on any claim relating to the issue of whether d efendant was deprived of his

Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney

failed to file an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order(s) denying defendant’s

motion to suppress evidence or negotiate a conditiona l plea, as well as the issue of

whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising these issues on appeal.
From: susan.h.leblanc@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Susan LeBlanc

Paris, KY 40361
### Enclosure 4

SIP completeness checklist

### Enclosure 4

COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR SIP REVISION 

### Revisions to 2007 PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plan for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley

Planning Area: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V

– Criteria fo r Determining the Completeness

of Plan Submissions Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's Designee x See submittal letter.

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption x SCAQMD Resolution 11

- 9 and ARB Resolution 11

- 24

. 2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation x ARB Resolution 11

- 24 and Executive Order S

- 11

- 010.
2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan b: Contingency Measures N/A Not Applicable.

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's Procedural Requirements x SCAQMD Resolution 11

- 9 and ARB Resolution 11

- 2 4.

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 40 CFR part 51.102 x See Enclosure 1 of the submittal letter and Enclosure 3 of the submittal letter

. 2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in Accordance with Notice x SCAQ MD Resolution 11

- 9 and ARB Resolution 11

- 24

. 2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and Responses x See Enclosure 1 of the submittal letter.

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant N/A Not Applicable.

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/S tatus N/A Not applicable.

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions x See Enclosure 1 of the submittal letter.

2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan Approval/Implementation Protects NAAQS x See Enclosure 1 of the submittal letter.

2.2(e) Modeling Suppo rt N/A Not Applicable.

2.2(f)

- Compliance/Enforcement and 2.2(i) Justification N/A Not Applicable.
From: louann.schrock@indwes.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:56:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

We are in a sad state of affairs when people no longer take responsibility for their actions thus creating

hardships for those around them. I do not believe that I, as an American citizen, should be forced to

fund the irresponsibility of others. We make choices everyday that affect circumstances of our lives.

Pregnancy is not a "natural disaster" and shouldn't be treated as such.

With all due respect,

Lou Ann Schrock

Sincerely,

Lou Schrock

Kokomo, IN 46901