alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: FEBRUARY 12, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF

- AERO-WELD, INC. Respondent FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Proceeding) FDMS NO: FAA-2012-0909


### ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING In compliance with our order, 1Complainant Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, filed and served the Complaint by first-class mail onFebruary 5, 2013? Complainantrequests thatthe hearing be held in or near San Antonio, Texas, where Respondent apparently islocated.3 In the interest of judicial efficiency, the above-captioned proceeding is reassigned from the undersigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

### SO ORDERED.

Attachment

- Service List

1Notice ofAssignment and Order ofChiefAdministrative Law Judge Denying Motion to Dismiss Request for Hearing (Jan. 31, 2013). 2 Complaint at 4 (Feb. 5, 2013) ("Certificate ofService"). 3 !d.; Transmittal Letter (Feb. 5, 2013). 

## 00

....... ·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 2Wl0004 ONE COPY 

### JeffreyS. Ruth, Respondent'sRepresentative 

### Aero-Weld, Inc., Respondent 

### 433 Breesport San Antonio, TX 78216 TEL: 210-590-7888 FAX: 210-366-2618 Yolanda AyalaBernal, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southwest Region Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 FortWorth, TX 76193-0007 TEL: 817-222-5070 FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0909 (Civil Penalty Action)

The Honorable Richard C. 

### Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

4 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in perso or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, .W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC- 30.

### -2-
### ZucKERT ScouTT RASENBERGER

WILLIAM H. CALLAWAY, JR. 

### September 16, 2014



### Via regulations.gov and electronic mail Robert Finamore Division Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Office ofInternational Aviation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 888 Seventeenth Street, Nw, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006-3309 Phone 202.298.8660 Fax 202.342.0683 www:zsrla>v.com whcallaway@zsrlaw.com



### Re: Joint Application ofKorean Air Lines 

### Co., Ltd. and LAN Peru 

### S.A. for Blanket Statements of Authorization; Docket OST-2014-0161 Dear Mr. Finamore: We have polled the air carrier representatives on the attached service list regarding the above-referenced Joint Application and received no objections. Accordingly, we respectfully request expedited consideration ofthis Joint Application.
Very truly yours,

# (.;J~*Q~~z... William H. Callaway, Jr. Counsel to Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd.

cc: All parties listed on attached service list

Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger, L.L.P.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I caused a copy ofthe foregoing letter to be served, this 16th day of September, 2014, via email transmission, on the following persons: howard.kass@aa.com robeti.wirick@aa.com sascha.vanderbellen@delta. com sametta.c.barnett@delta.com sllunsford@fedex.com sharon.pasley@fedex.com gbleopard@fedex.com perkmann@cooley.com (Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines) jhill@cooley
.com (Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines) kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com peter.beckett@polaraircargo.com dkirstein@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit Airlines) jyoung@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit Airlines) dan.weiss@united.com gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United Airlines) anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) david.christofano@dot. gov robeti.finamore@dot.gov brett.kruger@dot.gov john.s.duncan@faa.gov info@airlineinfo.com

Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger, L.L.P. Bryant Templeton
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of ICT Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Vincent A. Paccapaniccia, Executive Vice President, Corporate Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and



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



|               |  |  |  |                                    
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------
|               |  | 
|March 15, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Vincent A. Paccapaniccia       
|               |  |  |  | Vincent A. Paccapaniccia           
|               |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate
|               |  |  |  | Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### Louise FREEMAN et al., Relators, v. Clarence W. FERGUSON, District Judge et al., Respondents.

No. A-5511.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 11, 1956.

Peter P. Cheswick, Houston, for petitioners.

Bradley & Geren, Groesbeck, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Relators have filed in this Court a motion for leave to file a “motion requesting a show cause hearing on complaint in contempt.” The ground for the claim that respondents, Judge Clarence W. Ferguson and attorneys. Bradley and Geren, are in contempt of this Court is as follows: In the case of Cheswick v. Freeman, Tex., 287 S.W.2d 171, this Court dissolved an injunction which enjoined the sheriff of Limestone County from selling a tract of land under execution. The ground of the' injunction was that the land was the homestead of Freeman and, as, such, was exempt from sale under execution. Thereafter relators caused an alias, execution to be issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff, whereupon the attorneys filed another suit to enjoin its execution by the sheriff and the respondent, Judge Ferguson, granted a writ of temporary injunction.

Respondents have replied to relators’ motion, disclaiming any intent whatever to violate any order of this Court. The answer reflects that both the judge and the attorneys have misconstrued the opinion of the court in Cheswick v. Freeman, supra. In their reply the attorneys state that “nowhere in the opinion of the court nor in the mandate is there any statement made that said cause is reversed and rendered and the failure of the court to state that said cause was ‘rendered’ has led respondents to believe that the Court is of the opinion respondents are entitled, as a matter of equity and justice, to another hearing.”

While this Court did not use the word “rendered” in its opinion, it did actually render judgment against plaintiff, Fred Freeman. The judgment entered upon the minutes of this Court contained the following recitation which is also contained in the mandate: “And this Court proceeding t& render such judgment as should have been rendered below, it is considered, adjudged, *633■ordered and decreed that respondent (plaintiff in the district court), Fred Freeman, be, and is hereby, denied the judgment as prayed for in plaintiff’s original petition and,.supplemental petition, and that he recover nothing herein.” That was a final judgment decreeing that the lánd in suit was not the homestead of Freeman and was subject to the first execution which issued. The court did not remand the case for a new trial.

While the instant suit for injunction should not have been filed to re-try the issue of homestead, settled by the former suit, and the Honorable District Judge should not have granted the temporary injunction, unless, as contended, there is a fatal mistake in the notice of sale, still we should not adjudge the lawyers in contempt ■of this Court for filing the suit or the judge for granting the writ. An honest misinterpretation of an opinion of a court is not an act of contempt.

Relators’ “motion for leave to file motion requesting Show Cause hearing in contempt” is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 482 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 482

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EMERALD 
                                 AYES.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
U.S.C. App. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and 
sections 12106 and 12107 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary 
of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with a 
coastwise endorsement for the vessel EMERALD AYES, United States 
official number 986099.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 482

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EMERALD 
                                 AYES.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,360,507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,423,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                   300,378
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,696,902
<PP&E>                                     193,256,626
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,258,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             577,015,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,362,905
<BONDS>                                    493,571,442
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,015,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               577,015,932
<SALES>                                    120,279,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           120,279,555
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,444,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               234,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          41,020,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (40,419,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (40,419,949)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (40,419,949)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# Amtsblatt L 30/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0642 |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | L 30 |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Rechtsvorschriften | 63. Jahrgang3. Februar 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0642

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

L 30

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Rechtsvorschriften

63. Jahrgang3. Februar 2020

---

| Inhalt | | Berichtigungen | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Berichtigung des Beschlusses (EU) 2019/1815 des Rates vom 24. Oktober 2019 zur Ernennung von zwei von der Republik Slowenien vorgeschlagenen Mitgliedern und drei von der Republik Slowenien vorgeschlagenen stellvertretenden Mitgliedern des Ausschusses der Regionen ( ABl. L 278 vom 30.10.2019 ) | 1 |

Inhalt

Berichtigungen

Seite

*

Berichtigung des Beschlusses (EU) 2019/1815 des Rates vom 24. Oktober 2019 zur Ernennung von zwei von der Republik Slowenien vorgeschlagenen Mitgliedern und drei von der Republik Slowenien vorgeschlagenen stellvertretenden Mitgliedern des Ausschusses der Regionen ( ABl. L 278 vom 30.10.2019 )

( ABl. L 278 vom 30.10.2019 )

1

| DE | Bei Rechtsakten, deren Titel in magerer Schrift gedruckt sind, handelt es sich um Rechtsakte der laufenden Verwaltung im Bereich der Agrarpolitik, die normalerweise nur eine begrenzte Geltungsdauer haben.
  Rechtsakte, deren Titel in fetter Schrift gedruckt sind und denen ein Sternchen vorangestellt ist, sind sonstige Rechtsakte. |
| --- | --- |

DE

Bei Rechtsakten, deren Titel in magerer Schrift gedruckt sind, handelt es sich um Rechtsakte der laufenden Verwaltung im Bereich der Agrarpolitik, die normalerweise nur eine begrenzte Geltungsdauer haben.

Rechtsakte, deren Titel in fetter Schrift gedruckt sind und denen ein Sternchen vorangestellt ist, sind sonstige Rechtsakte.

---

Berichtigungen

| 3.2.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 30/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 30/1

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses (EU) 2019/1815 des Rates vom 24. Oktober 2019 zur Ernennung von zwei von der Republik Slowenien vorgeschlagenen Mitgliedern und drei von der Republik Slowenien vorgeschlagenen stellvertretenden Mitgliedern des Ausschusses der Regionen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 278 vom 30. Oktober 2019
  )

Seite 12, Artikel 1 Buchstabe b erster Gedankenstrich

Anstatt:

| „— | Herr Aleksander Saša ARESNOVIČ, župan Mestne občine Maribor,“ |
| --- | --- |

„—

Herr Aleksander Saša ARESNOVIČ, župan Mestne občine Maribor,“

muss es heißen:

| „— | Herr Aleksander Saša ARSENOVIČ, župan Mestne občine Maribor,“. |
| --- | --- |

„—

Herr Aleksander Saša ARSENOVIČ, župan Mestne občine Maribor,“.

---
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10232

__________________

DANIEL JOE HITTLE,

Plaintiff-Counter- Defendant-Appellant,

versus
CITY OF GARLAND TEXAS,

Defendant-Counter Claimant- Appellee, and

GARLAND POLICE DEP'T; JOHN DOES, 1-10, J.G. GEORGE, City of Garland Police Officer; D. SWAVEY, City of Garland Police Officer; D.W. ROEHRIG, City of Garland Police Officer; J. HOLMES, City of Garland Police Officer; S.A. CROSS, City of Garland Police Officer, Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:91-CV-2621-T

- - - - - - - - - - (August 11, 1995)
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this civil rights case, the plaintiff has filed a notice of
appeal from a interlocutory jud gment entered February 6, 1995,No. 95-10232 -2-
dismissing his claims against the City of Garland, Texas. The
plaintiff's claims against five other individual defendants remain

to be adjudicated. The appellee correctly argues that the order is
not appealable.
When an action involves multiple parties or multiple claims,
any decision that adjudicates the liability of fewer than all the
parties or disposes of fewer than all the claims does not terminate

the litiga tion and is therefore not appealable unless certified

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). S ee Thompson v. Betts , 754 F.2d 1243,

1245 (5th Cir. 1985). The district court has not certified the

order for appeal. Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit












Exhibit 10.36


[STAPLES LETTERHEAD]


January 23, 2017


Via Hand Delivery
Joe Doody
4285 Deephaven Lane
Naples, FL 34119
 


Dear Joe:


As we continue on our 20/20 journey, it is vital that the members of the Staples Leadership Team focus on our most critical 20/20 initiatives. In light of your upcoming retirement on September 9, 2017, we are asking you to take on a reduced role allowing you to focus on three of these initiatives: (1) guiding the transformation of Staples Supply Chain; (2) pursuing strategic alternatives for our Australian and New Zealand businesses; and (3) reallocating your job duties and responsibilities to the appropriate members of the Staples Leadership Team (“SLT”). 


Work Schedule and Pay
Effective February 1, 2017, commensurate with your new, streamlined responsibilities you will work a reduced schedule of 12 hours per week.  Effective January 29, 2017, your new weekly pay will be $4,029.19, minus legally required federal and state payroll deductions.


On May 1, 2017, following the transition of your primary duties, you will be employed as Special Advisor to Staples and required to be available for no more than eight hours per week, as needed by members of the SLT.  In exchange for this commitment, Staples will compensate you at a weekly rate of $1,000 less legally required federal and state payroll deductions.  


APA Bonus
You will remain eligible for the FY2016 APA bonus, subject to the Company’s satisfaction of the APA plan criteria.  Your APA will be 100% of your current FY2016 salary.


Performance Award Shares (“PAS”)


	
					
	Performance Award Share Cycle
	Date Shares Will Issue
	Number of Shares Issued
	Eligibility
	Vesting Date

	2015-2017
	~March 2018
	Dependent upon Board Approval
	86.7% of Target
	Immediately upon receipt

	2016-2018
	~March 2019
	Dependent upon Board Approval
	53.41% of Target
	Immediately upon receipt

	2017-2019
	~March 2020
	Dependent upon Board Approval
	20.29% of Target
	Immediately upon receipt























Restricted Stock Unit Awards (“RSU”)
You will remain eligible for your 2017 RSU award which is typically issued in March or April following the Staples Board of Directors’ Compensation Committee meeting.  


Paid Time Off (“PTO”)
You will accrue PTO in accordance with the part-time, exempt schedule.


PIPA
You will remain bound by the obligations set forth in your Proprietary Interest Protection Agreement until September 9, 2018.


Cancellation of Severance Benefits Agreement
As part of this arrangement, you and Staples will agree to cancel your Severance Benefits Agreement by mutual execution of the Revocation of Severance Benefits Agreement.


Employment At Will
Your employment will remain “at will” through September 9, 2017, which means that your employment may be terminated for any or no reason, with or without cause or notice, at any time by you or the Company.  


If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.




Sincerely,


/s/ Regis Mulot


Regis Mulot
Executive Vice President
Global Human Resources
evok-ex1026_665.htm



Exhibit 10.26

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made effective as of the 25th day of January, 2017, by and between Evoke Pharma, Inc. (the “Company”), and Marilyn R. Carlson, M.D. (“Executive”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to that certain Employment Agreement, effective as of December 1, 2013 (“Original Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Original Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties agree as follows:


	
1.
	
Section 3(b) of the Original Agreement.  The second sentence of Section 3(b) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:





	

	
“For each year during the term of this Agreement, Executive’s target Annual Bonus shall be 40% of her base salary actually paid for such year.”





	
2.
	
Miscellaneous.  This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Original Agreement.  All other terms and provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and to be performed wholly within such State, and without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof.  The headings of the sections in this Amendment are inserted solely for the convenience of the parties and are not a part of and are not intended to govern, limit or aid in the construction of any term of provision hereof.  This Amendment may not be amended or modified otherwise than by a written agreement executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and legal representatives.




(Signature Page Follows)

 



Exhibit 10.26

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date(s) set forth below.

 


		
	
 
	
EVOKE PHARMA, INC.

	
 
	
 

	
Dated:  3-8-17
	
By:  /s/ David A. Gonyer

	
 
	
Name:  David A. Gonyer

Title:    Chief Executive Officer

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
EXECUTIVE

	
 
	
 

	
Dated:  09MAR2017
	
/s/ Marilyn R. Carlson

Marilyn R. Carlson
October 25, 2011

SUBSTITUTE JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JULIAN KUCIEMBA, Appellant

NO. 14-08-00050-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This court today heard a motion for rehearing filed by appellant, JULIAN 

KUCIEMBA. We order that the motion be overruled, and that this court’s former 

judgment of June, 30, 2011 be vacated, set aside, and annulled. We further order this 

court’s memorandum opinion on remand of June, 30, 2011, withdrawn.

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, that the appellant pay all costs expended in this 

appeal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.