alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED MAY 2, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0050 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

r:n::LY-3 D l:UO 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2010SW2900189) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Dane B. Jaques, Respondent's Counsel 

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 

1676 International Drive, PH 

McLean, VA 22102 

TEL: 703-336-8800 

FAX: 703-336-8750 

ONE COPY 

EMAIL: djaques@mckennalong.com 

Jeffrey Novata, Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney, Southwest Airlines Co. · 

Love Field 

P.O. Box 36611 

Dallas, TX 75235-1611 

TEL: 214-792-4263 

Yolanda Ayala Bernal, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

Safety Enforcement Branch, Southwest Region, ASW-7E2 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Bpulevard, Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5070 

. FAX: 817-222-5945 or 5092 

EMAIL: Y olanda.A.Bernal@faa.gov 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0050 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W I 000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

-3-
kmph-ex103_28.htm


 

Exhibit 10.3

 

Amendment to 

Amended and Restated Employment Agreement

This Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of October 13, 2015 (this “Amendment”) by and among KemPharm, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Gordon K. Johnson (the “Executive”).  

Background

A. The Company and Executive previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of June 25, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”)

B.Pursuant to Section 17.F of the Employment Agreement, the Employment Agreement may be amended by a written instrument between the Company and the Executive; and

C.The Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein.

Amendment

For and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment hereby agree as follows:

1.Amendment to Section 2.C.  Section 2.C of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:

“C. Equity Compensation. Upon the terms and conditions set forth in the following subsections on the Effective Date, Company shall grant to Executive an option (the “Option”) to purchase 160,000 shares of Company’s common stock (“Common Stock”) pursuant to and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Company's 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, or a successor plan (the “Plan”), and the Company’s form of option or stock grant agreement. The exercise price of the Option will be equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of such grant. The Option will vest on an annual basis over a period of four years with 25% of the shares of Common Stock subject to the Option vesting on the first anniversary of the date of grant and with an additional 25% of the shares of Common Stock subject to the Option vesting at each subsequent anniversary of the date of grant until such time that the Option is fully vested and exercisable, provided, that all options granted pursuant to this Section 2.C, and each other outstanding equity award granted to Executive, shall accelerate so as to be fully vested and immediately exercisable immediately prior to any Change in Control (as defined in the Plan) of the Company.”

2.This Amendment shall become effective immediately upon execution by the Company and the Executive.

3.Other than as set forth in this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

[Signature Page Follows]

 




 

In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

 

 

COMPANY:

 

KemPharm, Inc.

 

By: /s/ Travis Mickle

Name: Travis Mickle

Title: President and CEO

 




 




 

In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

 

EXECUTIVE:

 

/s/ Gordon K. Johnson

Gordon K. Johnson
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
24, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods referred to in the Form 10-Q.
 /s/ Eric J. FossEric J. FossPresident and
Chief Executive OfficerApril 30, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

KIMBERLEY ANN SCARBOROUGH

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 27 DB 2021 (No. 28 RST 2021)

Attorney Registration No. 312697

( Out of State )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6 th day of May

, 202 1 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated April 26 , 2021

, is approved and it is ORDERED that

Kimberley Ann Scarborough

, who has been on Administrative Suspension

, has never

been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that s h e has the moral

qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the

Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of th e

Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and

processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2010-1276

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM092AD

A310-53-2011, R02 --- 6/10/99

A310-53-2058, R2 --- 1/4/96

A310-55-2004, R4 --- 4/17/01

A310-55-2004, R3 --- 4/16/97

A310-55-2004, R2 --- 2/7/91

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### Alphonzia COOPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-713.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

March 10, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 21.1  Subsidiaries of Registrant

<TABLE>

NAME                                         JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
----                                         -----------------------------
<S>                                          <C>
Integrated Silicon Systems, Inc.             North Carolina

ISS Software Inc.                            California

ISS Corporate Services, Inc.                 North Carolina

ArcSys UK Limited                            England

Avant! Export FSC, Inc.                      Barbados

FrontLine Design Automation, Inc.            California

Meta-Software, Inc.                          California

Anagram, Inc.                                California

Avant! Japan KK                              Japan

Meta-Software KK                             Japan

Meta-Software SA                             Switzerland

Meta-Software Deutschland, GMBH              Germany

AvanWise, Inc.                               Delaware

AvanSmart, Inc.                              Delaware

Nexsyn Design Technologies, Inc.             California

Gemstone Corporation,  LLC                   Delaware

Compass Design Automation, Inc.              Delaware

Galax!, Inc.                                 Delaware

Compass Design Automation, GMBH              Germany

Compass Design Automation, International BV  Netherlands

Compass Foreign Sales Corporation            Barbados

Compass Japan, KK                            Japan

Precim Corporation                           Oregon

Technology Modeling Associates, Inc.         California

</TABLE>

                                          31
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 21, 2011

jam 

# Order

June 21, 2011

143261 (29)

NELSON SUMPTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143261
COA: 301689 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive f ees is considered and it
is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisone r pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing f ee of $120.00, shall s ubmit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being
returned with this order. Failure to comply wi th this order shall re sult in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $255.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.
The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41496

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

REYNALDO GARCIA ARDILA,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 97-41496

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo Garcia Ardila (Ardila) was convicted of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of

marijuana and aiding and abetting to possess with intent to

distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. He was sentenced on March 29,

1989 to serve a 63-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a

five-year term of supervised release. 

Ardila committed several violations of the terms of his

supervised release. As a result, the district court revoked the 
No. 97-41496 

-2-

supervised release, and remanded Ardila to the Bureau of Prisons

for a term of 60 months. At the hearing, Ardila did not object to

the sentence. When a defendant fails to object, this court reviews

for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v.

Claverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). When

plain error is apparent, this court may raise the issue sua sponte.

United States v. Pineda-Ortuna, 952 F.2d 98, 105 (5th Cir. 1992).

On appeal Ardila argued that the 60-month sentence was plainly

unreasonable, because the district court did not adequately

consider the policy statement contained in Chapter 7 of the United

States Sentencing Guidelines. He also contended that the district

court’s reference to his drug addiction as the basis of sentencing

was unconstitutional. See Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660,

667 (1962).

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

conclude that the district court did commit plain error, because it

imposed a sentence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). When an

underlying conviction is for a class B felony, the maximum

allowable sentence upon revocation of supervised release is three

years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The district court sentenced

Ardila to five years. Accordingly, the sentence should be vacated

and remanded to the district court for re-sentencing in conformity

with § 3583(e)(3). Ardila’s second contention, that referring to

his drug addiction in sentencing is unconstitutional, is without

merit. See United States v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.

1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1527 (1998)(the district court

sentenced defendant because he used controlled substances in
No. 97-41496 

-3-

violation of the terms of his probation, not because he was a drug

addict). 

VACATED AND REMANDED.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 31.2



                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Lawrence D. Ellis, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form
10-K of The Med-Design Corporation; and

         2. Based on my knowledge, Amendment No. 1, 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 Amendment
No. 1 to the annual report.


Date:    April 23, 2004


LAWRENCE D. ELLIS

-------------------------
Lawrence D. Ellis
Chief Financial Officer
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0339 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 - SW - 051 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
Helping People Help the Land

Conservation Activity Plan

Prescribed Burning • April 2014

A prescribed burning conservation 

activity plan is a site-specific 

strategy that helps a landowner 

manage undesirable vegetation and 

shift the competitive balance towards a 

more desirable plant species.

NRCS Technical Service Providers 

(TSPs) prepare these plans using 

inputs such as:

• Location of the burn unit

• Specifically required weather 

 conditions

• Resource management 

 objectives

 • Smoke management plan

 • Identification of burning 

 methods

Prescribed Burning • Firing sequence

• Pre-burn preparation and 

 post burn evaluation and 

 management 

• Contingency plan and 

 identification of safety zones

Conservation practices recommended 

by such a plan can include:

• Brush management

• Firebreaks

 • Prescribed Grazing

 • Forest stand improvements

• Range planting 

• Wildlife habitat management 

• Herbaceous weed control

• Fuel break

• Wetland enhancement

For more information, please visit 

www.nrcs.usda.gov and search for 

“Technical Service Providers.”
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of ROO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin Smyth,
      Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








December
                19, 2006
            /s/
                Lou KernerLou
                KernerChief
                Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001076779
<NAME>                        March Indy International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     200
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           200
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,657,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      224,850
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   4,030
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,428,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,657,700
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           447,350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           1,601,828
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         897,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,946,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,946,678)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,946,678)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.79)




</TABLE>
#### Dorothy C. STEWART, Appellant, v. Alan C. STEWART, Appellee.

No. 69-585.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 10, 1970.

*231Carr & Warren, Miami, for appellant.

John E. Kirk, Sarasota, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by plaintiff wife from a final judgment of divorce. The single point presented on appeal is whether the allowance of alimony and child support is so grossly inadequate as to constitute an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Appellant’s principal contention is that since the court granted the appellant and her minor child the use of the marital home as a residence, the court should have ordered the defendant-appellee husband to make the monthly mortgage payments on the marital home.

In view of the often stated principle that the findings of the trial judge will not be disturbed if the evidence reasonably supports those findings, we hold that error has not been established. The trial judge did not require the wife to make the mortgage payments. He thereby left to the determination of the wife whether she would maintain the residence as a home.

In Lyons v. Lyons, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 137, 139, the court set forth the law regarding mortgage payments made by a former wife when the residence is held as an estate in common with the former husband:

> The residence property was owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety. Upon divorce they owned it as tenants in common, under § 689.15, Fla.Stat., F. S.A. As such, each had the burden of discharging one half of the obligations thereof. Walker v. Sarven, 41 Fla. 210, 25 So. 885. The wife was under no duty to assume and pay the husband’s half of the charges against the property for items such as mortgage interest, taxes, insurance and repairs. For the period she pays the same during pendency of the cause or after decree she should be entitled to credit for the portion thereof allocable to the husband’s interest, to be determined and allowed upon sale of the property.

Affirmed.