alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9:30 AM – 9:45 AM

At 9:45 AM

10:00 AM – 10:15 AM Interview with Steph Ruhle, MSNBC

10:00 AM – 10:30 AM Senior Staff Meeting 

10:15 AM – 10:25 AM

At 10:25 AM

10:25 AM – 10:55 AM

11:00 AM – 11:15 AM Remarks to SIFMA

11:15 AM – 11:30 AM Fireside Chat with SIFMA President Ken E. Bentsen, Jr.

11:30 AM – 11:45 AM

11:45 AM – 12:00 PM

12:00 PM – 1:15 PM Lunch

1:15 PM – 1:45 PM

At 1:45 PM

1:50 PM – 2:00 PM

2:00 PM – 3:00 PM NABE Roundtable Discussion

3:15 PM – 3:30 PM

3:30 PM – 3:55 PM

4:00 PM – 5:00 PM Meeting with New York Times Editorial Board

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)
#### CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, etc., Petitioner, v. Miriam Dee NOBLES, Respondent.

No. 42897.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 265 So.2d 550.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, BOYD and DEKLE JJ., dissent.
#### LILES PACKAGE STORE, INC., Appellant, v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-64.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 22, 1970.

Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellant.

Aronovitz, Silver & Booth and Alan Rothstein, Miami, and Robert D. Zahner, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, sued the City of Miami, Florida and sought a declaratory judgment and other relief. In answer to Walgreen’s amended complaint the city admitted that certain of the allegations therein were “moot insofar as distance requirements are concerned.”

Thereafter Liles Package Store, Inc. and others filed a petition to intervene in the cause. Their petition set forth only that petitioners were “licensed liquor package stores in the City of Miami” and that they were objectors at the planning and zoning and at the City of Miami hearing at which Walgreen’s application for transfer of a liquor package store license was denied and that they had an interest in the litigation as it was a zoning matter affecting the petitioners. These were the only pleadings filed by Liles or any other intervenors and they did not file a complaint or answer in intervention or any other pleadings or affidavits of any nature in the cause. An order was entered permitting petitioners to intervene in the pending litigation “in subordination to and in recognition of the propriety of the main proceeding.”

Ultimately and after notice the trial judge entered a final summary judgment for Walgreen’s and against the City of Miami.

The intervenor, Liles Package Store, Inc., is the only appellant from the summary final judgment.

The record made in the trial court, which is before us on this appeal, does not reveal how or in what manner the intervenor-appellant is aggrieved or prejudiced by the summary final judgment or how it will be injuriously affected economically or legally by the summary final judgment. See Credit Industrial Co. v. Re-Mark Chemical Co., Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 540; King v. Brown, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 187; Rule 3.11(a), F.A. R., 32 F.S.A.; 4 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Er*272ror §§ 178, 180, 182 and 183; and 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 186. Cf. Los Angeles Printing Co. v. Los Angeles Round-Up, 101 Cal.App. 733, 282 P. 401 (1929).

We previously denied a motion to dismiss filed by Walgreen’s without prejudice to argue the point on appeal. We now grant the motion and the appeal is

Dismissed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3182

ROBERT SOUTHERLAND,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

SF0752080706-I-1.

ON MOTION

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and BRYSON Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The court treats Robert Southerland's letter concerning his petition for review as

a motion for reconsideration of the court's previous rejection of his petition for review as

untimely.

On December 30, 2008, an Administrative Judge of the Merit Systems Protection

Board issued an initial decision sustaining the agency's suspension of Southerland.

The decision stated that it would become the Board's final decision on February 3, 2009

unless Southerland filed a petition for review with the Board. Southerland did not file a

petition for review with the Board. The decision also informed Southerland that any

petition for review seeking review by this court would be due within 60 days after the

Board's decision became final. Southerland's petition, seeking review by this court, was
received by this court on April 13, 2009. On that same day, the clerk of this court

returned the petition for review to Southerland, informing Southerland by letter that to

be timely filed the petition had to be received by the court within 60 days from the date

of the final decision, i.e., on or before April 6, 2009. In his motion, Southerland states

that he mailed the petition on April 3, 2009 by certified mail.

Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1),

which provides that "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review

must be filed within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final

order or decision of the board." This filing period is "statutory, mandatory, [and]

jurisdictional." Monzo v. Dep't of Transportation, 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984);

see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal

in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived). A petition must be

received by this court by the due date; placing the petition in the mail on or before the

due date does not establish timeliness. Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A).

Because Southerland's petition was not received within 60 days of the date the

Board's decision became final, we must dismiss his petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Southerland's petition is dismissed.

All sides shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 0 2 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly	

FILED

us. COURT OF APPEALS FOR Clerk	THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

2009-3182	 2	 JUL 02 2009

JAN HORbttLY

CLERK
cc:	Robert Southerland

Vincent D. Phillips, Esq.

s19

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: 	

JUL 0 2 2009

2009-3182	 3
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cubic Corporation (the “Corporation”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter J. Zable, Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
|   | /s/ W. J. Zable                                  |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | W. J. Zable                                      |
|   | Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                             |
|   |                                             |
|   | Date: August 1, 2007                             |

 

----
Exhibit 10.3(a)


 


AMENDMENT
TO 


Winc, Inc.
2013 STOCK PLAN


 


This
Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Winc, Inc. 2013 Stock Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) is adopted
by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Winc, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
effective as of October 25, 2021 (the “Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan.


 


RECITALS


 


		A.	The Company currently maintains the Plan.



 


		B.	Pursuant to Section 11 of the Plan, the Board has the authority to at any time amend the Plan, subject
to approval of the Company’s stockholders to the extent required by applicable law (including an increase in the number of Shares
(as defined in the Plan) available for issuance under the Plan).



 


		C.	The Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to
increase the aggregate number of Shares reserved and available for issuance under the Plan.



 


AMENDMENT


 


The Plan is hereby amended
as follows, effective as of the date on which the Company’s stockholders approve this Amendment, except as otherwise provided below:


 


		1.	Section 4(a). The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted and
replaced in its entirety with the following:



 


“Not more than 3,256,906 Shares
may be issued under the Plan, subject to Subsection (b) below and Section 8(a).”


 


		2.	This Amendment shall be and, as of the date on which the Company’s stockholders approve this Amendment,
is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan.



 


		3.	Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.



 


*****
DEPARTMENTorNATURALRESOURCESANDENVIRONMENTALCONTROLOrrictorTHE89KINGsHIGi-IwAYPHoNE:(302)739-9000SECRETARYDOVER,DELAWARE19901FAx:(302)739-6242June9,2009Mr.WilliamC.Early(3RAOO)RegionalAdministratorU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRegionIII1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PA19103-2029DearMr.Early:IampleasedtosubmittheenclosedrevisiontotheStateofDelawareStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fortheAttainmentandMaintenanceoftheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsforOzone.TherevisionisentitledRegulationNo.1141—LIMITiNGEMISSIONSOFVOLATILEORGANICCOMPOUNDSFROMCONSUMERANDCOMMERCIALPRODUCTS,Section2.0--ConsumerProductsandSectionandSection4.0—AdhesivesandSealants.TheeffectivedateoftheserevisionsisApril11,2009.TherequirementsoftheCAASection110(a)(2)(A)havebeenmetthroughthenormalpublichearingprocessestablishedbytheStateofDelawarewithpropernotification(30days)priortotheconveningofthepublichearing.ApublichearingwasheldonJanuary28,2009.AttachmentsAandBarecopiesofaffidavitsasproofofpropernotification.ItisthepositionoftheStateofDelawarethatallminimumrequirementssetforthinthe1990CleanAirActAmendmentshavebeenmet.WelookforwardtocontinuingthecooperativeeffortbetweenDelawareandEPAinthisimportantwork.Asalways,feelfreetocontactmeorAliMirzakhalili,Administrator,(302)739-9402,ifyouhaveanyquestionsconcemingtheencloseddocuments.SinceSecretarycc:DianaEsher,EPAw/encl.JamesWerner,Director,DAWMAliMirzakhaliliSTATEOFDELAWAREVetaccate49oodljatatedeftec.reü0%9041
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2292

DAVID E. COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-154-3-MU) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 12, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David E. Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days withinwhich to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).The district court entered its order on July 9, 1997; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on September 11, 1997, which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE> 37

                                                                  Exhibit 32


                            Certifications


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2003 of American General Finance Corporation as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
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 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/  Frederick W. Geissinger
                                      Frederick W. Geissinger
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer


                                 /s/  Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.
                                      Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.
                                 Senior Vice President and
                                   Chief Financial Officer


Date:  July 30, 2003
May 9, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EMERSON HANDY, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00632-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED, to delete 

the dollar amount assessed as costs.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 The Banker's Store, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10- Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cynthia
A. Hayden, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on
my knowledge:





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





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





Dated:
      January 20, 2009/s/ Cynthia A. HaydenCynthia
      A. HaydenPresident
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 

SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 

On October 9, 2013, after discussion with the full Board of Directors, the Compensation Committee approved the following Director Compensation measures
effective October 31, 2013: 
  

	1.	Base Cash Compensation 

  

	 	•	 	Each non-employee director will receive Base Cash Compensation of $70,000 annually beginning October 31, 2013. Payments will be made quarterly in arrears. 


 

	 	•	 	Each non-employee director shall have a one time election to convert all or any portion of the Base Cash Compensation for the next 3 years into an option vesting over 3 years (the “Option in Lieu of
Cash”). Total Base Cash Compensation per non-employee director for the next 3 years is equal to $210,000, or $200,603 for directors whose term commenced on August 19, 2013. 


 

	2.	Additional Cash Compensation 

  

	 	•	 	Each non-employee director will also receive the following annual Additional Cash Compensation based upon his or her service on committees of the Board: 


 

					
	Chair (annual Additional Committee Cash Compensation)	 
	 -Audit
	  	$	24,000	  
	 -Compensation
	  	$	18,000	  
	 -Nominating/Governance
	  	$	18,000	  

  

					
	Member (annual Additional Committee Cash Compensation)	 
	 -Audit
	  	$	15,000	  
	 -Compensation
	  	$	10,000	  
	 -Nominating/Governance
	  	$	10,000	  

  

	 	•	 	Additional Cash Compensation set forth above shall be retroactive to July 1, 2013 for continuing directors and shall be pro-rated for newly appointed directors based on their appointment date of August 19,
2013. 

  

	 	•	 	Additional Cash Compensation cannot be converted into an option since committee memberships and chairmanship can change year to year. Payments will be paid quarterly in arrears. 


 

	3.	Equity Award 

  

	 	•	 	In addition to any Option in Lieu of Cash, each director will receive an option vesting over 3 years (the “3 Year Equity Award”) calculated to be worth $200,000 per year for three years, equal to a total
option award equivalent to $600,000, or $573,150 for those whose service commenced on August 19, 2013 ($173,150 for Year One (316 days), $200,000 for Year Two, and $200,000 for Year Three). 


 

	 	•	 	The number of options subject to each Option in Lieu of Cash, as well as each 3 Year Equity Award, will be calculated based on a Black-Scholes model.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

1.       Air Travel Services, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

2.       DFI, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

3.       O'Charley's Finance Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

4.       O'Charley's Management Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

5.       O'Charley's Restaurant Properties, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
         company

6.       O'Charley's Service Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

7.       O'Charley's Sports Bar, Inc., an Alabama corporation

8.       OCI, Inc., a Delaware corporation

9.       OPI, Inc., a Colorado corporation

10.      SRLS LLC 5001, a Delaware limited liability company

11.      SRLS LLC 5002, a Delaware limited liability company

12.      SRLS LLC 5003, a Delaware limited liability company

13.      SRLS LLC 5004, a Delaware limited liability company

14.      SRLS LLC 5005, a Delaware limited liability company

15.      SRLS LLC 5006, a Delaware limited liability company

16.      Stoney River Legendary Management, L.P., a Georgia limited partnership

17.      Stoney River, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

18.      Stoney River Management Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation

19.      99 Commissary, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

20.      99 Restaurants, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

21.      99 Restaurants of Boston, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company


<PAGE>

22.      99 Restaurants of Massachusetts, a Massachusetts Business Trust

23.      99 Restaurants of Vermont, LLC, a Vermont limited liability company

24.      99 West, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation

25.      JFC Enterprises, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

26.      Wi-Tenn Restaurants, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7266 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7266

 To prohibit COVID-19 liability waiver enforceability for large indoor 
                              gatherings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2020

 Mr. Pocan (for himself and Mr. Takano) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit COVID-19 liability waiver enforceability for large indoor 
                              gatherings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Refusal to Accept Losses or 
Liability In Every Situation Act'' or ``RALLIES Act''.

SEC. 2. COVID-19 LIABILITY WAIVERS UNENFORCEABLE FOR LARGE INDOOR 
              GATHERINGS.

    (a) In General.--Title 9 of the United States Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

       ``CHAPTER 4--WAIVER OF LIABILITY DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

``Sec.
``401. COVID-19 liability waiver unenforceable for large indoor 
                            gatherings.
``Sec. 401. COVID-19 liability waiver unenforceable for large indoor 
              gatherings
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no agreement 
entered into waiving liability pertaining to contracting COVID-19 at an 
indoor gathering of more than 1,000 persons shall be valid or 
enforceable for an event occurring in a locality experiencing a 14-day 
increase in the number of COVID-19 cases.''.
                                 <all>
```