alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit10.2**

 

**AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**COURIER CORPORATION**

**2005 STOCK EQUITY PLAN FOR**

**NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS**

 

A.                                   The CourierCorporation 2005 Stock Equity Plan for Non-employee Directors (the “Plan”),effective November 3, 2004, amended December 7, 2006, is hereby amendedpursuant to the authority reserved in Section 9 thereof:

 

a.               Section 7(e) (Methodof Exercise) is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph at the endthereof:

 

### “Alternatively, the Participant may choose to exercisehis or her Option by means of a “net exercise” arrangement pursuant to whichthe Company will reduce the number of shares of Stock issuable upon exercise bythe largest whole number of shares with a Fair Market Value that does notexceed the aggregate exercise price.”

 

B.                                     Except as amendedherein, the Plan is confirmed in all other respects.

 

C.                                     The effectivedate of this Amendment is July 15, 2009.

 

Approvedby the Board of Directors, July 15, 2009

 

----
**Part I, Section B, Item 2(e) Chemical Structure Diagram TS**  **- C507**  **4 P**
EXHIBIT 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATIONS

I, Kenneth E. Wolf, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and;

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ Kenneth E. WolfName:

Kenneth E. WolfTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

November 13, 2006


A signed original of this Certification has been provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc.
and will be retained by Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
  the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert F. Orlich, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
  Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                                      
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ ROBERTF. ORLICH                  
| |  |                                      
| |  | Robert F. Orlich                     
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 27, 2008

The foregoing is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being filed as part of this Annual Report on
  Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.



---
Order entered June 5, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01562-CR

RICHARD WAYNE HENDERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F00-55020-Q

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s May 31, 2013 pro se “Motion for Doctrine of Estoppel.” 

The Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction on February 25, 2013 and the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals refused appellant’s petition for discretionary review on May 15, 

2013. The Court has no jurisdiction over collateral attacks to the conviction.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY 

JUSTICE
#### Robert WHITFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. J-108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 27, 1970.

Robert Whitfield, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The decision of this court in the captioned cause entered on the 29th day of September, 1970, is hereby vacated and the opinion withdrawn without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a petition for habeas corpus in this court seeking full appellate review of his conviction in accordance with the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So.2d 577 (Fla.1967). This action is taken in light of the recent order dated October 6, 1970, entered in the cause pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, in Robert Whitfield v. State of Florida, Tallahassee Civil Action No. 1603.

The Public Defender of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit is hereby directed to file an appropriate petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Hollingshead v. Wainwright, supra, for the purpose of initiating in this court a belated full appellate review of Robert Whitfield’s judgment of conviction and sentence in the Circuit Court in and for Bay County, Florida. The record filed in this court in Case No. J-108 the same being appellant’s earlier ineffectual effort to appeal said judgment and sentence, may be used as the record for the purpose of accomplishing the “Hollingshead appeal.”

The Clerk of this court is directed to mail certified copies of this order to Robert Whitfield, the Public Defender of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, and the Attorney General.

JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR, WIGGINTON, and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
(2011). "[We] review[ ] findings of fact for clear error but thefl legal

consequences of those facts involve questions of law that we review de novo." State v. Beckman, 129 Nev. „ 305 P.3d 912, 916 (2013). Additionally, we review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. State v. Hughes, 127 Nev. „ 261 P.3d 1067, 1069 (2011).

We have recently held that the warrantless, nonconsensual search provided for in NRS 484C.160(7) is unconstitutional. Byars v. State, Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 85, October 16, 2014). However, we concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary remedy applies and exclusion is not mandated when an officer "relied in good faith on the constitutional validity of NRS 484C.160, and such reliance appears reasonable." Id. at , P.3d at , slip op. at 14. Here, the district court found that the officers' reliance on the statute was objectively reasonable and the exclusionary rule did not apply. Nothing in the record suggests that the district court's factual findings are clearly erroneous, and we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Repinec's motion to suppress the blood evidence.

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Douglas 

# taz-tm Hardesty ) 0 , 0 74

, J. , J.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1941Acc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge State Public Defender/Ely Attorney General/Carson City White Pine County District Attorney White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) I947A i4P„

i p,W.1 3
NAICS: 999100

EPA or Federal Government

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1 = W $56.54 $37.15 $21.15

Benefits Percentage2 Lb = B/W 46.3% 46.3% 46.3%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $26.19 $17.21 $9.80

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = 

W(1+Lb) $82.73 $54.36 $30.95

Overhead Percentage3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $41.36 $27.18 $15.47

Fully Loaded Hourly 

Rate

Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH $124.09 $81.53 $46.42

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm May 2014 data

 NAICS 999100 - Federal Executive Branch 

 Standard Occupational Codes:

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations

 Technical: 

19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science 

Occupations updated 

3/25/2014

 Clerical: 

43-0000, Office and Administrative Support 

Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non-farm, non-federal civilian workers.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, 

EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the range of 20-

70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
#### Matteo S. APONE, Appellant, v. Edna M. GREEN, Appellee.

No. 70-780.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 18, 1971.

Larry D. Goldstein, of Brown, Ruiz, Watson & Goldstein, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Donald V. Bulleit, of Fowler, White, Gil-len, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, St. Peters-burg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

It undisputedly appears that the notice of appeal here was filed one day late. We are, therefore, without jurisdiction of this appeal. The same must be, and it is hereby, dismissed *ex mero motu.*See, Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver (Fla.1960), 121 So.2d 648 and Robberson v. Jefferson (Fla.App.1968), 207 So.2d 467.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
No. 00-5233.

#### Robinson *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Apprendi*v. *New Jersey,*530 U. S. 466 (2000).
#### ALTER v. FINESMITH.

No. 38045.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So.2d 732.
1 Gift cards offered by retailers (such as stores and restaurants) fall under the

Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction, while those offered by depository institutions do not. 

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency has issued a guidance on disclosures and marketing

issues for gift cards issued by national banks. See OCC Bulletin 2006-34 (Aug. 14, 2006). 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 14, 2007

Mr. Salvatore Buscaglia

Re: In the Matter of Kmart Corporation, Kmart Services Corporation, and

Kmart Promotions, LLC, corporations

FTC File No. 062 3088 

Dear Mr. Buscaglia:

Thank you for the comments you submitted regarding the above-referenced matter. Your

comments were placed on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, and were given serious consideration by the Commission.

The Commission anticipates that this proposed consent order will send a strong message

that retailers1

 must adequately disclose these material conditions when selling gift cards. Indeed,

over the last few years, the Commission staff has observed that many retailers have already

changed their marketing practices. While many retailers eliminated expiration dates or fees

altogether, staff has found generally that disclosures by retailers still imposing fees have

improved. After considering all of the factors that must be weighed in evaluating any settlement,

including the specific facts, consumer injury, and the need to ensure that the remedies deter

similar behavior by other retailers, the Commission concluded that the strong injunctive

provisions and mandatory refund provision provide a positive result for consumers and an

appropriate resolution of this case.

After considering your comments, the Commission has determined that the public

interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without

modification. Respondents will be required to comply with the Order’s injunctive and

reimbursement provisions, and will be subject to potentially large civil penalties if they violate

the Order.
Page 2

Please remember that you may access the Commission’s Consumer Hotline at (202)

326-3569 for updated information about how to receive a refund if your Kmart gift card was

charged dormancy fees. 

Thank you again for your comments. The Commission is aided in its analysis by hearing

from a variety of sources in its work, and it appreciates your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz concurring in

part and dissenting in part.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00412-CV

TANYA MARIE COX,

Appellant

v.

ARNOLD GERIK,

Appellee

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-3969-4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Tanya Cox, appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of 

appellee, Arnold Gerik, on October 27, 2017. By letter dated February 6, 2018, the Clerk 

of this Court notified appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal because the 

original filing fee had not been paid and warned appellant that the Court would dismiss 

the appeal unless, within ten days from the date of the letter, appellant paid the filing fee 

or obtained indigent status for the purposes of appeal. Ten days have passed, and 
Cox v. Gerik Page 2

appellant has not paid the filing fee for this appeal. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss this 

appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3 (c). 

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed February 28, 2018

[CV06]
**EXHIBIT32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cubic Corporation (the “Corporation”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, WalterJ. Zable, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
| /s/  W. J. Zable                                  |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| W.  J. Zable                                      |   |
| Chairman,  President, and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                              |   |
| Date: February 8, 2010                       |   |

 

----
Exhibit 10.27 CBPP Grandfathered Pension Credtis






AMENDMENT TO 
CINCINNATI BELL PENSION PLAN
The Cincinnati Bell Pension Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2012 and in order to cease the crediting of pension credit amounts under the Plan for certain participants in the Plan, by adding new Subsections 5.3.10 and 5.3.11 reading as follows to the end of Section 5.3 of the Plan (immediately after Plan Subsection 5.3.9).
5.3.10    Notwithstanding the foregoing subsections of this Section 5.3 or any other provision of this Plan, in no event shall any amount be credited under this Section 5.3 as of any date that occurs after December 31, 2011 to the Cash Balance Account of any Participant who is not a Grandfathered Participant (as defined in Subsection 5.3.11 below).  
5.3.11    For purposes of Subsection 5.3.10 above, a “Grandfathered Participant” means a Participant who, as of January 1, 2012, either: (a) has Net Credited Service of 25 years or more; or (b) has Net Credited Service of 20 years or more and has attained at least age 55.  The term “Net Credited Service” means, with respect to any Participant, the Participant’s Term of Employment that would be determined under the terms of Section 3.7 above if all references to a “Covered Employee” in such Section 3.7 and in the Prior Pension Plan were deemed to be references to an “Employee.”
IN ORDER TO EFFECT THE FOREGOING PLAN CHANGE, the Plan’s sponsor, Cincinnati Bell Inc., has caused its name to be subscribed to this Plan amendment.
CINCINNATI BELL INC.
By: /s/ Christopher J. Wilson                   
Title: V.P. General Counsel & Secretary  
Date: November 29, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

FL TBADE CORA
<P recciveo oncuments Ors

OCF 26 200
. Secagtact

in the Matter of

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.
a forcign corporation,

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, DOCKET NO. 9300

a corporation, and

PITT-DES MOINES, INC.,
a corporation.

Nee et Net Se ee et Ne Ne ee ee?

ORDER DESIGNATING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Pyrsuant to authority vested in the Federal Trade Corumission and delegated to the Chief
Administrative Law Judge,

IT 1S ORDERED that D. Michael Chappell, an administrative law judge of this
Commission, be, and he hereby is, designated and appointed to take testimony and receive
evidence in this proceeding and to perform ali other duties authorized by law.

ames P. Timony

Chief Administrative Law Judge

Dated: October 26, 2001
#### Solomon HAMM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-434.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 9, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Parker, Jr., Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgments of the lower court are affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







Artesian
Resources Corporation


Newark,
Delaware




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-88531 and 333-136184) and Form S-8 (No. 333-05255, 333-31209,
333-78043 and 333-126910) of Artesian Resources Corporation of our reports dated
March 11, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the
effectiveness of Artesian Resources Corporation’s internal control over
financial reporting, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








/s/BDO
Seidman, LLP





Bethesda,
Maryland


March 11,
2010
P. 1


# RCRA Box 321 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



### Document

Number: 

# 247 ) OGRC-S003 9 Docket Number: 

# F-93-OGRC-FFFF F

Printed 5/8/20073:36:33 PM

Sheet 247 of 259P. 2 

### 0£tf£-S"003< J <,fc O ST4.

H I

o 

# USB , UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY WASHINGTON , D.C . 2046 0

OFFIC E O F SOLI D WAST E AN D EMERGENC YRESPONS E iW f2 1 199

1
MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Statu s o f Waste s fro mthejCry4 e Oi l Reclamatio n Industry FROM : Sylvi a K . Lowrance ,

Offic e o f Soli d Was t TO : Regiona l Wast e Managemen t Divisio nDirector s

EPARegion s 1-1 0 Th e attache d lette r fro mDo n Clayt o a representativ e o f th e crud e oi l reclaime r industryi s provide d fo r you r information . I n Septembe r 1990 , severa l representative s o f th e crud e oi l reclaime r industrymad e a reques t o f th e Agenc yt o provid e a n interpretatio n o f th e 198 8 RegulatoryDeterminatio n pertainin g t o Subtitl e C coverag e o f oi l an d ga s exploratio nan d productio n (E&P ) waste s wit hrespec t t o waste s fromcrud e oi l an d tank bottomreclaimers . Th e RegulatoryDeterminatio nstate d tha t liqui d an

d soli d waste s generate d b ycrud e oi l an

d tank bottom reclaimer s wer e no t include d i n th e origina l (statutory ) exemptio n fromSubtitl e C requirements . Th e attache d lette r interpret s thi s languag e t o mea ntha t reclaime r waste s tha t ar e derive d onl yfromexemp t oi l an d ga s E& P waste s ar e exemp t from Subtitl e C requirements . A s indicate d i n th e attache d correspondence , w e pla n t o publis ha n interpretiv e notic e i n th e Federa l Registe r o n thi s subjec t withi n a fewmonths . Th e attache d lette r als o provides , a s broa d guidanc e unti l publicatio no f th e notice , som e example s fo r determining whic hcrud e oi l reclaime r waste s ar e exemp t from Subtitl e C . I f yo u hav e an

yquestion s concerning thi s subject , pleas e contac t Bo bTonett i a t (703 ) 308-8426 . Attachmen t

Printed on Recycled

Paper