alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.06

                               FIRST AMENDMENT OF
                      2000 KEY EMPLOYEES' STOCK OPTION PLAN
                         OF BLUE RIVER BANCSHARES, INC.

     WHEREAS, Blue River Bancshares, Inc. (the "company") maintains the 2000 Key
Employees' Stock Option Plan of Blue River Bancshares, Inc. (the "plan"); and

     WHEREAS, the company's Board of Directors has authorized and directed the
undersigned officers to amend the plan to provide option holders a period of
three months in which to exercise an option following termination of employment,
unless terminated "for cause;"

     NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power to amend the plan reserved to the
company under Section 17 of the plan and delegated to the undersigned officers,
the plan is hereby amended, effective March 1, 2001, by adding the following to
the end of subparagraph 10(a) of the plan:

         "Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective for any option granted on or
         after March 1, 2001, the right to exercise the option shall terminate
         three months from the optionee's termination of employment, unless that
         period is shortened or lengthened pursuant to subparagraphs (b), (c) or
         (d) below (but in no event later than the date the option expires
         pursuant to its terms)."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the company has caused this amendment to be
executed on its behalf by the undersigned officers this 27th day of February,
2001.

                                                BLUE RIVER BANCSHARES, INC.

                                                By: /s/ Steven R. Abel
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                Steven R. Abel
                                                Its:  Chairman
ATTEST:


/s/ D. Warren Robison
------------------------------
D. Warren Robison
Its:  Secretary



                                       34
No. 55591.

#### A. Schulman, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 134174-K, etc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Western Coastal and Marine Geology

##### U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3007

# Views of the Sea Floor in Northern Monterey Bay, California

### *By* Curt D. Storlazzi, Nadine E. Golden, and David P. Finlayson

### 2008

A sonar survey that produced unprecedented high-resolution images of the sea floor in northern Monterey Bay was conducted in 2005 and 2006. The survey, performed over 14 days by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), consisted of 172 tracklines and over 300 million soundings and covered an area of 12.2 km2 (4.7 mi2). The goals of this survey were to collect high-resolution bathymetry (depth to the sea floor) and acoustic backscatter data (amount of sound energy bounced back from the sea floor, which provides information on sea-floor hardness and texture) from the inner continental shelf. These data will provide a baseline for future change analyses, geologic mapping, sediment- and contaminant-transport studies, benthic-habitat delineation, and numerical modeling efforts. The survey shows that the inner shelf in this area is extremely varied in nature, encompassing flat sandy areas, faults, boulder fields, and complex bedrock ridges that support rich marine ecosystems. Furthermore, many of these complex bedrock ridges form the “reefs” that result in a number of California”s classic surf breaks. 

----

Download this map as a 48” x 36” PDF file (sim3007.pdf; 37.1 MB).  

For questions about the content of this report, contact Curt Storlazzi

Suggested citation and version history

----

Download a free copy of the current version of Adobe Reader.

| Help   | PDF help   | Western reports main page | Western Scientific Investigations Maps || Geologic   Division | Western Coastal and Marine Geology   |

----

This report is also available in print from:

USGS Information Services, Box 25286, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225telephone: 888 ASK-USGS; e-mail: infoservices@usgs.gov

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey	URL: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3007/	Page Contact Information: Michael Diggles	Page Last Modified: June 9, 2008

----
No. D-1717.

#### In re Disbarment of Levin.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 518 U. S. 1045.]
# C_2016364EN.01004302.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/43

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission

(Case F-146/12) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Action manifestly inadmissible))

(2016/C 364/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Anne Mommer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, and subsequently by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, and finally by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and finally by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 78.

---
No. 39171.

#### Protest 939653-G of S. Takazawa & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47647) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1703 was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

d0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138803 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138803 

 COA: 283452 

Wayne CC: 07-009605-FH 

GERELL CHARLES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2009 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
PATRICK ALLEN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2496

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defen d er, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Pu blic

Defender, Tallahassee; Frederick Ma nn, Panama City , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., RAY and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [WY-923-1310-FI; WYW129550] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc. for competitive oil and gas lease WYW129550 for land in Johnson County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW129550 effective July 1, 2006, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.                 

Pamela J. Lewis, 

Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication. 

 [FR Doc. E7-9637 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
# C_2014409EN.01000802.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Philippe Gruslin v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA

(Case C-88/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) - Directive 85/611/EEC - Article 45 - Concept of ‘payments to unit-holders’ - Delivery to unit-holders of certificates for registered units))

2014/C 409/11

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Philippe Gruslin

Applicant:

Defendant: Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The obligation laid down in Article 45 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of 29 June 1995, under which an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities which markets its units within the territory of a Member State other than that in which it is situated is required to make payments to unit-holders in the Member State of marketing, must be interpreted as not including the delivery to unit-holders of certificates providing evidence of title to units which are registered in their name in the register of unit-holders kept by the issuer.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 16

TIMOTHY L. STEERS                                 The River Forum
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, LLC                  4380 S.W. Macadam, Suite 210
                                                  Portland, Oregon 97239-6404

                                                  Phone: 503/274-6296
                                                  Fax:   503/274-6297
                                                  E-mail: tim@steerscpa.com



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Gentlemen:

We have read Item 4 of Form 8-K dated February 27, 2004 of California Clean Air,
Inc. and are in agreement  with the statements  contained in paragraphs  (a)(ii)
and (iv) therein. We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of
the registrant contained therein.


                                  /s/ TIMOTHY L. STEERS, CPA, LLC
February 27, 2004
No. 43215.

#### Protest 938000-G of Schear & Schrader (New York).

*395Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of squawker balloons composed wholly or in part of bamboo. On the authority of Abstract 40493 the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was sustained.
# C_2012319EN.01001202.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/12

---

Action brought on 10 August 2012 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card)

(Case T-367/12)

2012/C 319/23

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 May 2012 in case R 2532/2011-2, and render the registration of the contested trade mark application as a Community trade mark with regard to all goods and services concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 May 2012 in case R 2532/2011-2, and render the registration of the contested trade mark application as a Community trade mark with regard to all goods and services concerned; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MOL Blue Card’ for among other goods and services in classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No W01030440

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 8549172 of the word mark ‘BLUE’ for among others services in class 35; Community trade mark registration No 2065621 of the word mark ‘BLUE BBVA’ for among others services in classes 35 and 36; Community trade mark registration No 2277291 of the word mark ‘TARJETA BLUE BBVA’ for among others services in class 36

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and refused the application for all services in classes 35 and 36

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2014292EN.01003402.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)

(Case T-204/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VIAVITA - Earlier national word mark VILA VITA PARC and figurative mark VILA VITA - No genuine use of earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 292/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Viavita (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-P. Escande, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 419/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH and Viavita.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Viavita. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Viavita.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1741 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an investment 

tax credit for community wind projects having generation capacity of 

not more than 20 megawatts, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2011 

Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an investment tax credit for community wind projects 

having generation capacity of not more than 20 

megawatts, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Wind 

5 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1741 IS

1 SEC. 2. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT FOR COMMUNITY WIND 

2 PROJECTS HAVING GENERATION CAPACITY 

3 OF NOT MORE THAN 20 MEGAWATTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 48(c) of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

6 (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting 

7 the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified 

9 small wind energy property’ means— 

10 ‘‘(i) property which uses a qualifying 

11 small wind turbine to generate electricity, 

12 or 

13 ‘‘(ii) property which uses 1 or more 

14 wind turbines with an aggregate nameplate 

15 capacity of more than 100 kilowatts but 

16 not more than 20 megawatts.’’, and 

17 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as sub18 paragraph (D) and by inserting after subparagraph 

19 (B) the following new subparagraph: 

20 ‘‘(C) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall 

21 prescribe such regulations as may be appro22 priate to prevent improper division of property 

23 to attempt to meet the limitation under sub24 paragraph (A)(ii).’’. 

25 (b) DENIAL OF PRODUCTION CREDIT.—Paragraph 

26 (1) of section 45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1741 IS

1 is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 

2 ‘‘or any facility which is a qualified small wind energy 

3 property described in section 48(c)(4)(A)(ii) with respect 

4 to which the credit under section 48 is allowable.’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Karen FELTZIN and Oak Casualty Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Marc BERNARD, Appellee.

Nos. 97-1702, 97-1399 and 97-1299.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 5, 1998.

As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 4, 1998.

*316Steven R. Simon; Jeanne Heyward, Miami; Fazio, Dawson, Disalvo, Cannon, Abers & Prodrecca and David B. Pakula, Miami, for appellants.

Robbins & Reynolds, Miami; Arthur Joel Berger, Miami, for appellee.

Before COPE, GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Karen Feltzin and Oak Casualty Insurance Company, (Oak Casualty), appeal a final judgment of damages and attorney’s fees. They argue that the trial court impermissibly restricted their cross-examination of one of plaintiffs expert witnesses and improperly allowed the reading of irrelevant and prejudicial portions of an Oak Casualty adjuster’s deposition into evidence. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err on the cross-examination issue and that, even if the reading of the deposition was error, it was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment entered below.

Oak Casualty additionally argues that the trial judge erred by entering an order granting attorney’s fees against it. Before addressing this issue we note that Oak Casualty played a dual role in this case as both Feltzin’s liability insurer and Bernard’s uninsured motorist carrier.

Prior to trial Bernard served a demand for judgment upon defendant Feltzin for the sum of $10,000, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1995). No demand for judgment was made against Oak Casualty, Felt-zin’s liability insurance carrier. In fact, counsel for Bernard acknowledged during the motion for attorney’s fees that Oak Casualty was not a party to the motion for attorney’s fees against Feltzin. Accordingly, we conclude that the order granting attorney’s fees against Oak Casualty must be reversed. Our ruling is without prejudice to the assertion of any bad faith claims which may exist.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.