alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<S>     <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>    <C>
EXHIBIT 10.4(a)
                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                       ATLANTIC COAST AIRLINES 401(k) PLAN

Effective May 1 1997 Atlantic Coast Airlines  401(k) Plan -- Adoption  Agreement
Section E3 is hereby amended to incorporate the following:

E3       EMPLOYER'S MATCHING CONTRIBUTION (Plan Section 4.1)

         Determination of Matching Contribution

         [ ]      N/A. There shall be no matching contributions.
         [X]      The Employer shall make matching contirbtions equal to 25% of the
Participant's salary reductions.
         [ ] The Employer may make a discretionary  matching  contribution equal
to a percentage of the Participant's salary reductions.

         Limits on Matching Contribution

         [ ]      N/A. There will not be a limit on the matching contribution.
         [X]      In determining matching contributions, only salary reductions up to 4% of
a Participant's Compensation will be matched.
         [ ]      The matching contribution allocated to a Participant for any plan year shall            not
exceed $_____.

         Participants Eligible for Matching Contributions

         [ ]      N/A. There will not be a matching contribution.
         [ ]      Matching contibutions shall be made to all Participants.
         [ ]      Matching contributions shall be made to only Non-Highly Compensated
Employees.
         [X]      Matching contributions shall be made to only Non--Union Employees and                   Pilots.

         Service requirement for plan years beginning after 1989

         [ ]      N/A. There will not be a matching contribution.
         [ ]      A Year of Service shall be required to share in a matching contribution.
         [ ]      500 Hours of Service shall be required to share in a matching contirbution.
         [ X]     A Year of Service shall not be required to share in a matching
contribution.

         Service requirement for plan years beginning before 1990

         [X]      N/A, New Plan, or same as years beginning after 1989.
         [ ]      A Year of Service shall be required to share in a matching contribution.
         [ ]      A Year of Service shall not be required to share in a matching
contribution.

         Vesting of Matching Contributions

         [X] Matching contributions shall be subject to the vesting schedule for
Employer Contributions.
         [ ]      Matching contributions shall be 100% vested at all times.
         [ ]      Other _____________________

         Deferral Percentage Tests

         [ ]      N/A. There will not be matching contribution.
         [X] Matching contributions shall not be used in satisfying the deferral
percentage tests.
         [ ]      Matching contributions may be used in satisfying the deferral percentage
tests. (If used, full vesting and restrictions on withdrawals will apply, and the match will
be deemed an Elective Contribution).


Accepted By: ____________/s/______________
Atlantic Coasts Airlines
Date: _______June 28, 1997________________

</TABLE>
```

[104th Congress Public Law 70]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ70.104]

[[Page 109 STAT. 773]]

Public Law 104-70
104th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional provision for the 
  reduction of work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled in ozone 
        nonattainment areas designated as severe, and for other 
            purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 23, 1995 -  [H.R. 325]>> 

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

SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP REDUCTION.

    Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act <<NOTE: 42 USC 7511a.>> is 
amended to read as follows:
            ``(B) The State may also, in its discretion, submit a 
        revision at any time requiring employers in such area to 
        implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and 
        miles travelled by employees. <<NOTE: Guidelines.>> Such 
        revision shall be developed in accordance with guidance issued 
        by the Administrator pursuant to section 108(f) and may require 
        that employers in such area increase average passenger occupancy 
        per vehicle in commuting trips between home and the workplace 
        during peak travel periods. The guidance of the Administrator 
        may specify average vehicle occupancy rates which vary for 
        locations within a nonattainment area (suburban, center city, 
        business district) or among nonattainment areas reflecting 
        existing occupancy rates and the availability of high occupancy 
        modes. Any State required to submit a revision under this 
        subparagraph (as in effect before the date of enactment of this 
        sentence) containing provisions requiring employers to reduce 
        work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees may, 
        in accordance with State law, remove such provisions from the 
        implementation plan, or withdraw its submission, if the State 
        notifies the Administrator, in writing, that the State has 
        undertaken, or will undertake, one or more alternative methods 
        that will achieve emission reductions equivalent to those to be 
        achieved by the removed or withdrawn provisions.''.

    Approved December 23, 1995.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 325:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104-387 (Comm. on Commerce).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):
            Dec. 12, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 13, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Frontier Airlines/Mesa Codeshare Agreement


                                           AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                                                CODESHARE AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 (the Amendment) is made and entered into as of February 12, 2002
(the Effective Date), by and between Frontier Airlines, Inc. (Frontier), a corporation organized
under the laws of Colorado, and Mesa Airlines, Inc. (Mesa), a corporation organized under the laws
of Nevada.

RECITALS:

A.       Mesa and Frontier have entered into a Codeshare Agreement, dated as of September 4, 2001
                  (the Codeshare Agreement).  All capitalized terms used in this Amendment, but not
                  defined herein, shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Codeshare Agreement.

B.       Frontier has also entered into a codeshare agreement with Great Lakes Airlines.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Mesa and Frontier agree to amend the Codeshare Agreement as
follows:



1.       Add the following new Section 6.8.1:   In consideration for the reservation services, CRS fees,
                  credit card charge commissions, and certain ticketing services provided by Frontier under the
                  Codeshare Agreement, Mesa agrees to pay to Frontier a * per passenger fee for passengers flying
                  solely on connecting routes that involve flight segments operated by both Mesa and Great Lakes
                  under the F9 code; i.e., connecting routes that do not involve any Frontier-operated segments.
                  This fee shall not be in addition to the fee set forth in Section 6.8 of the Codeshare
                  Agreement.

2.       This Amendment shall be in full force and effect during the entire term of the Codeshare Agreement.

                                                              MESA AIRLINES, INC.


                                                              By: ______________________________
                                                              Name: ____________________________
                                                              Title: _____________________________

                                                              FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.


                                                              By: ______________________________
                                                              Name: ____________________________
                                                              Title: _____________________________
109 STAT. 798 PUBLIC LAW 104–84—DEC. 28, 1995

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 112:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Nov. 7, considered and passed House.

Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–84

104th Congress

Joint Resolution

Providing for the appointment of Louis Gerstner as a citizen regent of the Board

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance

with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress,

occurring by reason of the resignation of Ira Michael Heyman

of California on May 27, 1994, is filled by the appointment of

Louis Gerstner of Connecticut. The appointment is for a term of

six years and shall take effect on the date on which this joint

resolution becomes law.

Approved December 28, 1995.

Dec. 28, 1995

[H.J. Res. 112]
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.39

 
                      AMENDED AND RESTATED TERM-LINE NOTE
                      -----------------------------------

$15,000,000                                                    February 22, 1999


     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, an Arizona
corporation ("Borrower"), promises to pay to the order of U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION ("Lender"), that portion of the principal amount of $15,000,000 that
may from time to time be disbursed and outstanding under this note together with
interest.

     This note is a "Term-Line Note" under the Amended and Restated Loan
Agreement (as renewed, extended, amended, or restated, the "Loan Agreement")
dated as of January 31, 1997, between Borrower, Lender, certain other Lenders,
and Bank One, Texas, N.A., as Agent for Lenders.  All of the defined terms in
the Loan Agreement have the same meanings when used -- unless otherwise defined
-- in this note.

     This note incorporates by reference the principal and interest payment
terms in the Loan Agreement for this note, including, without limitation, the
final maturity.  Principal and interest are payable to the holder of this note
through Agent at either (a) its offices at 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas
75201, or (b) at any other address so designated by Agent in written notice to
Borrower.

     This note incorporates by reference all other provisions in the Loan
Agreement applicable to this note -- such as provisions for disbursements of
principal, applicable-interest rates before and after Default, voluntary and
mandatory prepayments, acceleration of maturity, exercise of Rights, payment of
attorneys' fees, court costs, and other costs of collection, certain waivers by
Borrower and other obligors, assurances and security, choice of Texas and United
States federal Law, usury savings, and other matters applicable to Loan
Documents under the Loan Agreement.

     This note is an amendment, restatement, renewal, extension, modification
of, consolidation of, and substitution for, the existing Term-Line Notes (as the
same may have been amended and replaced to the date hereof, the "Former Notes"),
which Former Notes were executed and delivered pursuant to the  Loan Agreement.


                              MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, as
                              Borrower


                              By                    /s/
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                       George R. Bender, President
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Raymond St. Bernard, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Irena Golodkeyer, Esq.), for appellant.Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered August 20, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant's answer and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant's answer and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant's motion and denying plaintiff's cross motion.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <a href="../2016/2016_50698.htm" target="_blank"><i>Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</i> (51 Misc 3d 143</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50698[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2016]), the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: October 27, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Blane KIGHT, Appellant, v. Lemuel Leroy BECKHAM, Appellee.

No. M-154.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 1970.

James C. Handly, Jr., of Law Offices of S. Perry Penland, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & D’Aiuto, Jacksonville, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict adverse to the appellant.

It is alleged by appellant, who was plaintiff below, that he and his fourteen year old daughter had been to a “Minit Market” on the west side of Arlington Road in Jacksonville, Florida, at about 8 P. M. and as he approached Arlington Road, which was in the construction process to widen same from a two-lane to a four lane highway, he stopped his automobile before driving on to the old or paved lanes of said road and looked for traffic. It is the appellant’s contention that he saw an automobile about two blocks away coming north, but that said auto was far enough away not to create a traffic problem to him in entering upon Arlington Road.

Appellant contends that after he had pulled onto the paved portion of Arlington Road and had travelled an estimated 150 to 200 feet (this distance does not appear to be in dispute) his car was struck from the rear. Appellant applied his brakes and a few seconds later appellee’s car struck appellant’s car again from the rear. Appellant claims injuries to himself and to his daughter who was a passenger in his auto.

The jury awarded damages to appellant’s daughter against the appellee herein, but this portion of the judgment is not under attack. The jury found the appellee not guilty as to the appellant’s claim.

There was some area for conjecture or computation of time to be made by the jury from the testimony of the parties as to when appellant came onto Arlington Road, where appellee’s car was at that time, and how far appellant had travelled on Arlington Road before being struck by appellee’s car. We believe there is sufficient competent evidence from which the jury could have found as it did which apparently was to the effect that both drivers were negligent but that the negli*4gence of the appellant could not be attributed to his daughter so as to bar her recovery.

We do not find error on the part of the trial court in refusing to direct a verdict for the plaintiff nor in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. There were jury questions involved here and there appearing sufficient competent evidence from which the jury could reach the conclusion it did, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury nor of the trial court in denying the motions.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.10

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$268,665.00                                                   Las Vegas, Nevada

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Crest View Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Maker"),
promises to pay to the order of Anthony Conforti (hereinafter referred to as
"Holder"), PO Box 4970, Albuquerque, NM 87196, or at such other address as
Holder may designate in writing, the principal sum of Two Hundred Sixty Eight
Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Five ($268,665.00) until paid, at the rate six
percent (6%) per annum.

The principal amount of the note shall be due and payable on or before June 30,
2003.

Should the amount owing on this note not be paid when due, the entire unpaid
principal sum evidenced by this Note will, without notice to the Maker, become
due and payable.

Maker hereby waives presentment of payment, protect and demand, notice of
protest, demand and dishonor and nonpayment of this Note, and consents that the
holder may extend the time of payment or otherwise modify the terms of payment
or any part or whole of the indebtedness evidenced by this Note as the request
of any other person liable hereon, and consent shall not alter nor diminish the
liability of any party hereunder.

Maker may repay the indebtedness evidenced hereby in whole or in part from time
to time without premium or penalty.

As used herein, Holder shall include any subsequent holder of this Note. Maker
shall have no right to assign this Note without the consent of Holder, and in no
event shall any assignment of this Note by Maker act to release maker from any
obligations hereunder unless such release is evidenced in writing by Holder.

This Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of Nevada.

Witness the hand of the undersigned this 18th day of September, 2001.


                                      Crest View Inc.


                                      By: /s/ John C. Francis
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          John C. Francis
                                          Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
#### AUTO SAFETY SERVICE, INC., and Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, Appellants, v. John MARTEIN and Sarah Martein, his wife, Appellees.

No. 77-1080.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 13, 1978.

*456Marc Cooper, Robyn Greene and Sharon L. Wolfe of Greene & Cooper, and Corlett, Merritt, Killian & Sikes, Miami, for appellants.

Fred C. Bamman, III, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

MOORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff who was a customer of Auto Safety Services, Inc. The plaintiff sustained injury when Auto Safety’s watch dog jumped on him knocking him to the ground. Plaintiff was awarded $42,000 as compensatory damages for his injuries and his wife was awarded $10,000 on her derivative claim. The plaintiff was also awarded $3,500 as punitive damages.

The only point on appeal which we consider to have merit concerns the propriety of the award of punitive damages. Appellant contends, and we agree, that its motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages should have been granted because there was insufficient evidence to support such an award.

The general principles applicable to awards of punitive damages have constantly been reiterated and are not in dispute:

> “Punitive or exemplary damages are allowable, however, solely as punishment or ‘smart money’ to be inflicted for the malicious or wanton state of mind with which the defendant violated plaintiff’s legal right, and can only be imposed in cases where either by direct or circumstantial evidence some reasonable basis for an inference of wantonness, actual malice, deliberation, gross negligence, or utter disregard of law on defendant’s part may be legitimately drawn by the jury trying the case.” *Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer,*126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214, 222-223 (Fla.1936). See also, *Buie v. Barnett First National Bank of Jacksonville,*266 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla.1972).

In the instant case, the dog allegedly had been involved in two prior incidents. The dog’s owner was aware that the dog had previously bitten one person who drove into the owner’s premises seeking roadway instructions at a time when the premises were closed to the public. The testimony concerning the second incident is very ambiguous and it appears that the dog’s owner never learned of the incident. A review of the totality of the evidence fails to reveal any reasonable basis from which the jury could have inferred wantonness, actual malice, deliberation, gross negligence, or utter disregard of the law on the defendant’s part. Its motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages therefore should have been granted.

Although we consider the jury’s award of damages to be generous, they are not such as to shock the judicial conscience and we may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

DOWNEY, C. J., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.
The Cyber Group Network Corporation
                        A Nevada Corporation







                             Exhibit 23

             Consents of Independent Public Accountants

Michael F. De Luca, CPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
23001 E. La Palma Ave.
SUITE 220A
Yorba Linda, CA 92887



                           August 17, 2000


To Whom It May Concern:

         The firm of Michael F. De Luca, Certified Public Accountant
consents to the inclusion of my report of August 15, 2000, on the
Financial Statements of The Cyber Group Network Corporation in any
filings that are necessary now or in the near future to be filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Professionally,



Michael F. De Luca, CPA
Numbe r Initials Name 1 JS, JCS John Sagabiel 2 DC Diana Ceballos 3 BZ Barbara Zielinska 4 AC Aaron Centric
Exhibit 99.2



Form of Section 906 Certification



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING

CABOT
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, L.P.



I, Christopher
L. Hughes, hereby certify that:



| | (1) |  | the Form 10-Q of Cabot Industrial Properties, L.P. for quarter ended December 31, 2002 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cabot Industrial
Properties, L.P.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|February 14, 2003 |  | /s/    CHRISTOPHER L.
HUGHES
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                  |  | Christopher L. Hughes       
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer