alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Amendment to Long Term Incentive Plan


 Exhibit 10.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO IMPERIAL SUGAR COMPANY 
 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 

(As Amended and Restated, effective January 10, 2003) 
 Pursuant to the terms and provisions of Article Twelve of the Imperial Sugar Company Long-Term Incentive Plan as Amended and Restated, effective January 10, 2003 (the “Plan”), Imperial Sugar Company
(the “Company”) hereby adopts the following Second Amendment to the Plan. All terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Plan. 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 
 WHEREAS, on January 16, 2008 the Board of Directors
(“Board”) approved an amendment to the Plan to modify Section 8.4, Substitution of Awards, to include a requirement for the Board of Directors to obtain shareholder approval prior to (i) reducing or allowing the
Compensation Committee to reduce the exercise price of an outstanding option or (ii) making or allowing the Compensation Committee to make substitutions of awards if such substitution would result in the issuance of an option in exchange for
the cancellation of an option with a higher exercise price under the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, at the direction of the Board of the Company,
the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 Section 8.4 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety by substituting the following
therefor: 
 Section 8.4 Substitution of Awards. Subject to the limitations of Section 5.1 and Article Seven, at the
discretion of the Committee, a Participant who has been granted an Award may be offered an election to substitute an Award received for another Award or Awards of the same or different type; provided, however, no such substitution shall be made
without prior shareholder approval if it would result in the reduction of the exercise price of an outstanding Option or issuance of an Option in exchange for the cancellation of an Option with a higher exercise price. Shareholder approval shall not
be required for actions taken by the Board or the Compensation Committee pursuant to Article 14.2 of the Plan. 
 Each amendment made by this
Second Amendment to the Plan has been effected in conformity with the provisions of the Plan. Except as expressly amended by the terms of this Second Amendment, the Plan (as amended by the First Amendment) as in existence prior to the effectiveness
of this Second Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Date: January 16, 2008 
  

 1 








	
	IMPERIAL SUGAR COMPANY
	
	 /s/ Robert A. Peiser

	Robert A. Peiser, President and Chief Executive Officer


  

 2
(Reap. Dec. 9925)

#### James G. Wiley, a/c Yale Sales Company *v.*United States

Entry No. DE-21008, etc.

(Decided February 27, 1961)

*Lawrence <& Tuttle (Edward N. Glad,*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*William S. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. EitzGibbon,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Mr. Glad : This appeal is abandoned except as to entries number 39019 and entry 2975, and the appeal is abandoned as to 39019 except for the item described as H 300 R 5, and as to that item, I offer to stipulate that during the period of exportation of that item in question there was no foreign, export or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined under Section 402 of the Act.

> Mr. FitzGibbon : That is agreed.

> Me. Glad : I also offer to stipulate that the cost of production for this particular item, as defined by Section 402 of the Act, is represented by the sum of $3.70, less 33% per cent.

> Mr. FitzGibbon : That is agreed.

> Me. Glad : This appeal is also abandoned with regard to entry number 2975, except for item number 217/Z 1 and 2.

> I offer to stipulate that the export value for such or similar merchandise of item 217/Z 1 and 2 during the period of exportation was $75.30 less 40 per cent, and that the foreign value for such or similar merchandise was not any higher.

> Me. FitzGibbon : That is agreed to.

On the agreed facts, I find (1) that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise described as item number H 300 E 5 on the invoice covered by entry No. 39019 and that such value is $3.70, less 33^ per centum; and (2) that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of *605the merchandise described as item number 217/Z1 and 2 on the invoice covered by entry No. 2975 and that such value is $75.30, less 40 per centum.

As to all other entries and all other items of merchandise, the appeal, having been abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 23.4**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-10932) pertaining to the 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. (the “Company”) of our report dated July 14, 2004, except for the effects of the restatement detailed in notes 3 (o), 4, 20, 22 and 30, as to which the date is August 26, 2005,with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in the Form 20-F/A for the year ended March 31, 2004. 

 

Ernst & Young 

Hong Kong 

 

September 20, 2005
No. 44368.

#### Protests 704358-G/81455, etc., of W. C. Sullivan & Co. et al. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6341** 

STAFFON RAY , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v.
WARDEN OF STEVENSON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 02774

- DCN )

Submitted : July 29, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Staffon Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cir cuit.2 PER CURIAM: Staffon Ray seeks to appeal the district court’s order s accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his motion to reconsider . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 52 9 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition stat es a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certif icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2015146EN.01003501.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — IDT Biologika v Commission

(Case T-30/12) (1)

1

((Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Supply to Serbia of anti-rabies vaccines - Rejection of a tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Manifest error of assessment))

(2015/C 146/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: initially R. Gross and T. Kroupa, then R. Gross and A. Mekdam, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 5 October 2011 (OJ 2011/S 222-359832) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/130686/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1995]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Industry Presentation on the Use of Mixed Oxide Fuel

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will host a meeting 
for presentations by representatives from the nuclear industry on the 
use of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in nuclear reactors. The meeting is open 
to the public, and all interested parties may attend.

DATES: February 21, 1997, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, 
Auditorium, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. (Note: The NRC 
is accessible to the White Flint Metro Station; visitor parking around 
the NRC building is limited.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vanice A. Perin, Mail Stop T-8-A-
33, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. Phone: 
301-415-8143; FAX: 301-415-5390; INTERNET: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b6d7a6b7b756978157c746d15">[email protected]</a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 14, 1997, the Department of 
Energy issued the Record of Decision (ROD) on the Storage and 
Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials. One of DOE's 
approaches to dispose of the surplus plutonium is to burn it as MOX 
fuel in existing domestic commercial reactors.
    The Nuclear Energy Institute has requested the opportunity to 
present information on the use of MOX fuel in light water reactors to 
NRC staff. A preliminary agenda for the meeting is as follows: (1) 
History of MOX Use Around the World, presented by the U.S. Department 
of Energy; (2) Mox Use in Asea Brown Boveri/Combustion Engineering 
(ABB/CE) Reactors, presented by ABB/CE; (3) MOX Use in Westinghouse 
Reactors, presented by Westinghouse; (4) MOX Use in General Electric 
(GE) Reactors, presented by GE; (5) European Pressurized Water Reactor 
Experience, presenter to be determined; and (6) European Boiling Water 
Reactor Experience, presenter to be determined.
    To ensure adequate meeting room space, attendees are requested to 
notify Ms. Vanice A. Perin at 301-415-8143 of their planned attendance 
and any special requirements (e.g., for the hearing-impaired.)

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22 day of January, 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck,
Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 97-1995 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2014102EN.01002803.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 December 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland, interveners: Kingdom of the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Finland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Estonia

(Case C-55/13) (1)

1

2014/C 102/40

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1

---
Dismiss and Opinion Filed June 30, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-00494-CR

TAMIE LINDLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crimin al District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12-55817-I



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the ap peal. Appellant’s couns el has approved the

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and

this decision be certifie d below for observance. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 140494F.U05

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TAMIE LINDLEY, Appellant

No. 05-14-00494-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12-55817-I. Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers.

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered June 30, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,540
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  315,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,424
<INVENTORY>                                    295,041
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               665,277
<PP&E>                                         363,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                 158,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,074,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          300,501
<BONDS>                                        228,443
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,157
<OTHER-SE>                                     328,379
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,074,582
<SALES>                                      1,156,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,156,658
<CGS>                                          764,596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  764,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               259,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,490
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                116,075
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,798
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,444
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,444
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.62
        

</TABLE>
August 6, 2015

Mr. Frederick Hagan

1405 Isabella View Ct.

Fisherville, KY 40023

Dear Mr. Hagan:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your May 26, filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-1930, but we are unable to process 

your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
No. 74-986.

#### Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. *v.*Paynter.

*

See also note, *supra,*p. 985.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Jus*998tice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.*
# C_2013171EN.01002501.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/25

---

Action brought on 6 May 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-248/13)

2013/C 171/48

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, J.-P. Keppenne and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied to the remuneration and pensions, the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant submits that the Council unlawfully refrained from adopting the Commission’s proposal for a regulation adjusting the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union pursuant to Article 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations, despite the fact that it is apparent from the mandatory terms of that article that the method for the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions is an automatic procedure which leaves the Council no discretion. The abovementioned article obliges the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal before 31 December of the current year. The Commission complains that the Council merely noted that it had no qualified majority to adopt the Commission’s proposal concerning, firstly, the adjustment of salaries and, secondly, the correction coefficients provided for in Annex XI of the Staff Regulations. In the submission of the applicant, the Council has in fact, without any grounds, applied Article 10 of Annex XI, ignoring the Commission and Parliament’s prerogatives. By so doing, the Council has infringed not only the provisions referred to above but also the principle of institutional balance, while committing an misuse of powers.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated January 28, 2000 included in this
Form 10-K into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement File No.
33-31556, No. 33-69840, No. 33-56693, No. 333-34249, No. 333-47729,
No 333-62629, No. 333-76633, No. 333-76635 and No. 333-80091.




ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Houston, Texas
March 24, 2000
No. 74-511.

#### Trainor, Acting Director, Department of Public Aid of Illinois *v.*Vargas.

C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00516

- CV

Cody Morrow , Appellant

v.

City of Killeen , Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 306798

, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on November 27, 2023

. On the Court ’ s own

motion, the deadl ine was extended to December 27, 2023 after appellant ’ s counsel withdr ew.

On Februa ry 8, 2024, this C ourt sent a n otice to appellan t informing him that his brief was

overdue and that a failure to file a satisfactory response by February 20, 2024

, would result in the

dismissal of this appeal for want of p rosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a

moti o n for extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and The ofan i s

Dismis sed for Want of Prose cution

Filed: March 15, 2024