alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 

AMENDMENT TO 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT 

Construction Partners, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and SunTx Capital Management Corp., a Texas
corporation (“SunTx”), hereby enter into this Amendment (the “Amendment”), which is made effective as of October 1, 2013, to the Management Services Agreement, dated October 1, 2006 (the
“Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and SunTx previously entered into the Agreement, effective as of
October 1, 2006; 
 WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that the term thereof shall expire on October 1, 2013; and 

WHEREAS, the Company and SunTx desire to extend the term of the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth below and in the Agreement, the Company and SunTx agree as follows:

  

	1.	Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following: 


“3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall expire on October 1, 2023; provided, however, that SunTx may
terminate its obligations to provide the Services upon 60 days’ prior written notice to the Company.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed this Amendment, which shall be effective as of the date first written above. 
  

									
	CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, INC.	 		  	SUNTX CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Charles Owens
	 		  	By:	  	 /s/ Mark R. Matteson

	Name:	 	Charles Owens	 		  	Name:	  	Mark R. Matteson
	Title:	 	Cheif Executive Officer	 		  	Title:	  	Vice President
#### In the Matter of Frank De Maio, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 337]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting threats and demonstrations after an incident in which he verbally threatened a correction officer and incited other inmates to throw hot water at prison staff. Petitioner contends that he was denied due process because the Hearing Officer failed to inquire as to whether the other inmates, who refused to testify, possessed exculpatory information. The Hearing Officer was not required to ascertain whether the potential inmate witnesses possessed exculpatory information. We find on this record that the Hearing Officer made a meaningful effort to secure the testimony of these witnesses (see, *Matter of Beckford v Coughlin,*210 AD2d 775, *Iv denied*85 NY2d 807; *Matter of Salcedo v Coughlin,*197 AD2d 729). We further reject petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer was biased. Finally, we have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
No. 67582.

#### Henry M. Young, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/13999 (New York).

*260Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the official papers indicated that the protest was not filed within the time prescribed by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, and it was dismissed as being untimely.
No. 62322.

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 315388-K/8984 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE

 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION 

2017 PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN 

This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”) to the Caesars Entertainment Corporation 2017 Performance Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”), is adopted by Caesars Entertainment Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), as of April 2, 2018. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the same
meanings assigned to them in the Plan. 
 RECITALS 

A.    Section 8.6 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) may amend
or modify the Plan from time to time; provided such amendments or modifications do not require the approval of the stockholders. 
 B.
    The Board believes it to be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to include new Section 8.16, and the Board has determined that, due to the nature of the changes proposed,
stockholder approval is not necessary or advisable with respect to this Amendment. 
 AMENDMENT 

1.    The Plan is hereby amended to provide for new Section 8.16 as follows: 

8.16 Repricings Prohibited. Except in connection with a corporate transaction involving the company (including, without
limitation, any stock dividend, stock split, extraordinary cash dividend, recapitalization, reorganization, merger, consolidation, split-up, spin-off, combination, or
exchange of shares), the terms of outstanding awards may not be amended to reduce the exercise price of outstanding Options or SARs or cancel outstanding Options or SARS in exchange for cash, other awards or Options or SARs with an exercise price
that is less than the exercise price of the original Options or SARs without stockholder approval. 
 2.    Except as
otherwise expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other Sections, terms and conditions of the Plan remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
From: bunnyhudson@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:06:55 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,

Alison Hudson

Atlanta, GA 30305
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                                  FORM 10-Q/A
                                Amendment No. 1
(Contains  Exhibit 27 - Article 5 of Regulation S-X Financial Data Schedule of
Registrant's Quarterly Report)

          (Mark  One)
          [  X  ]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D)
                   OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                   For the quarterly period ended NOVEMBER 30, 1996

                                       OR
          [     ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D)
                   OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

          For  the  transition  period  from  to

          Commission  file  number                  0-19623

                             MIAMI SUBS CORPORATION
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

     Florida                                                    65-0249329
(State or other jurisdiction of                            (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation  or  organization)                           Identification  No.)

             6300 N.W. 31st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida  33309
                    (Address of principal executive offices)
                                   (Zip Code)

                                 (954) 973-0000
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

     Indicate  by  check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required  to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934  during  the  preceding  12  months  (or for such shorter period that the
registrant  was  required  to  file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such  filing  requirements  for  the  past  90  days.

                              Yes    X     No

     Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes
of  common  stock,  as  of  the  latest  practicable  date.

                                 SIGNATURES


Pursuant  to  the  requirements  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant  has  duly  caused  this  Report  to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned  thereunto  duly  authorized.


                                             MIAMI  SUBS  CORPORATION

Date:  January  15, 1997                     By:/s/ Jerry W. Woda
                                                JERRY W. WODA
                                                Senior Vice President,
                                                Chief Financial Officer, and
                                                Pricipal Accounting Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Fiscal year 2006 CompetitiveTraining Grants Program (CTGP)**
 
Bulletin | Solicitation| Fact Sheet | Template
 
SuDoc Number:HS 5.303/2:207
Item Number:0520-H-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000655996
 
December 19, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 806 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 149
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 806

                          [Report No. 110-435]

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2007

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
read.
                                                 House Calendar No. 149

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 806

                          [Report No. 110-435]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 7, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DISMISSAL ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

Lakehurst Condominium Owners Association,

Plaintiff,

v.

Trinity Universal Insurance Company of Kansas

a foreign corporation, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-1987RSM

DISMISSAL ORDER

The Court having been notified of the settlement of this case, and it appearing that no issue

remains for the court's determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event that the settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided that such motion is filed within forty-five (45) days of the date of this order. Any trial date

and pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28 day of November, 2007.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01987-RSM Document 109 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LORETTA MARTIN et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5085RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOTED FOR:

MAY 12th 2006

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B). This matter comes before the court upon plaintiff's request/motion to voluntarily dismiss his

complaint, (Dkt. # 9). The court entered an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed

and in response plaintiff indicates “the plaintiff moves to dismiss this action.” (Dkt. # 9, page 2). After

reviewing plaintiff's response, and the remaining record, the Court recommends the action be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 41, a plaintiff has the right to voluntarily dismiss his case when no answer or motion for

summary judgment has been filed by an adverse party. Rule 41(a)(1) specifically provides that dismissal as a

matter of right can be foreclosed only by the filing of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Roddy v.

Dendy, 141 F.R.D. 261, 262 (S.D. Mississippi, 1992). When ruling on a motion to dismiss without prejudice,

Case 3:06-cv-05085-RBL Document 10 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

the district court must determine whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the

dismissal. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir.1994); Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber

Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir.1982).

Here, the complaint has not been served. Thus, plaintiff has a right to dismiss the action. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss his complaint (Dkt. # 9) should be GRANTED. 

A proposed order accompanies this report and recommendation.

Dated this 17th day of April, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05085-RBL Document 10 Filed 04/17/06 Page 2 of 2
J. 

may be rendered moot by subsequent events). We conclude that Boyes' 

argument against dismissing the petition as moot is without merit as he 

has failed to demonstrate that the issue is likely to arise again and that 

the challenged action is too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to 

its natural expiration. See Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

Court, 125 Nev. 849, 858, 221 P.3d 1240, 1247 (2009). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DISMISSED. 

, 

ta 

Gibbons 

J. 

J. 

cc: Law Office of Tammy M. Riggs, PLLC 

Attorney General/Carson City 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(01 1947A
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

we
wa
oe"
° y
v y
Z
a a

7

K<

7
Z

a
“4, a

/ \
SS p WW) - n Shy.
J % \ aS —
5 Y, \ a
Viki \x DS -,
Zao\3 OX A
Be é/ \
Me 8 :
Lifes i
Ly Z, 6 <
:
3
a
2
°
=
»
\
aN
Many

- Le \

“

(7)

Huy eee SZ
A nin Re al
| iggy NY AS
/ gy Ye
Tan wt eS
Whine Le

HII AWS
‘ 7

_-

—_

CX
~~

WS

\\

es WR ee ‘ ZG i o Ae ties Z ,

: : ‘ oe a 6 TI OD iE GA gre 5 Z it 2 ede ANE Zz Gs

. _ aa ee ONES SZ

. - | 2 7 ee 3s 5 85 os 2) Eiteesueees SOE LE i
SAISON Sg Ne oO CONC CEE

MAP AND SECTION OF THE HARRISITE PROPERTY, JUAB COUNTY, UTAH Se
From: pennajoeb@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:16:53 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,

Joseph Barnoski

, 22312-1509
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40363

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Terrance Collins, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:20-CR-925-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Terrance Collins

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Collins has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 14, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40363 Document: 00516055758 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2021
No. 21-40363

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-40363 Document: 00516055758 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2021
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Clearwire Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: March 25, 2009
    /s/ William T. MorrowWilliam T. MorrowChief Executive Officer