alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




Second Amendment

To

The Shaw Group Inc. 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan




          This Second Amendment to The Shaw Group Inc. 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”)
which was established by The Shaw Group Inc., a Louisiana corporation having its principal office
at 4171 Essen Lane, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70809 (the “Company”) under which Non-Qualified Stock
Options, Incentive Stock Options, SARs, Restricted Stock, Restricted Stock Units, Performance
Shares, Performance Units, Cash-Based Awards or Other Stock-Based Awards may be granted from time
to time to Participants.




          WHEREAS, the Omnibus Plan was established to promote the interests of the Company by
attracting and retaining directors and employees of outstanding ability and to provide employees an
incentive to make material contributions to the success of the Company by providing them with
equity based compensation, which will increase in value based upon the market performance of the
Company’s common stock and corporate achievement of financial and other performance goals;




          WHEREAS, the Omnibus Plan was approved by the Company’s shareholders on January 28, 2009;




          WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend certain provisions of the Omnibus Plan pursuant to this
Second Amendment subject to shareholder approval;




          WHEREAS, capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to
such terms in the Omnibus Plan;




          NOW, THEREFORE, the Omnibus Plan is amended in the following particulars effective as of
January 17, 2011:




AMENDMENT





	 	1.	 	Sections 4.1(a) and (b) of the Omnibus Plan shall be, and hereby is, deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following subject to shareholder approval of this Second
Amendment:
	 
	 	 	 	          (a) Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.4 of the Plan, the maximum number of
Shares available for issuance under the Plan shall be 6.4 million Shares plus the number of
Shares subject to Awards outstanding under the Prior Plans as of Effective Date but only to
the extent that such outstanding Awards are forfeited, expire or otherwise terminate without
the issuance of such Shares. To the extent that a Share is issued pursuant to the grant or
exercise of a Full Value Award, it shall reduce the number of Shares reserved under the Plan
by 1.78 Shares, and to the extent that a Share is issued pursuant to the grant or exercise
of an Award other than a Full Value Award, it shall reduce the number of Shares reserved
under the Plan by 1.00 Share.




1









 












	 	 	 	          (b) The maximum number of Shares that may be issued pursuant to ISOs under the Plan
shall be 6.4 million Shares.”





* * * * * *





	 	 	 	All other definitions and all other rights, terms and conditions set forth in the Omnibus
Plan shall remain the same with the same force and effect as originally adopted and approved
by the Company’s shareholders.






	 	 	 	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company has executed this Second Amendment
effective as of January 17, 2011, the date of shareholder approval.






2
December 7, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Amendment to Exemption No. 12074 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1369 under Section
333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 regarding sUAS

use.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Regarding: Exemption No. 12074 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1369 approved on July 17
,

2015.

Zugunruhe Geo, LLC seeks to amend this exemptio n as follows:

1) Additional aircraft.

There has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The current exemption is for the following:

1) Aircraft

a. 3D Robotics Aero

- M and Y6, ZetaScience FX

- 79, and the DJI S1000+

We request that the current exemption include the following aircraft. Many of these aircraft have been granted 333 exemptions by the FAA to other companies. All aircraft are under 55 lbs.

Addi tional aircraft to be added to the existing exemption and COA

DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire , Roboflight RF70, Precision Hawk Lancaster, Freefly Alta

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the E xemption.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph P. Busalacchi

1320 Nancy Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32301
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited October 31, 1996 financial statements of Treasury International, Inc.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                              44,688
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,063,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        584,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,723,225
<PP&E>                                           2,621,639
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,832,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,348,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,771,105
<BONDS>                                          1,501,880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,397
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,313,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,348,367
<SALES>                                            689,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   723,680
<CGS>                                              726,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      728,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (617,349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (617,349)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Gary Kusky, Respondent, v Town of Islip et al., Appellants.

[632 NYS2d 138]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel compliance with certain provisions of the Public Health Law and State Sanitary Code, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered May 11, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied the appellants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as academic.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellants’ notices of appeal are treated as applications for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted *(see,*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal by the Department of Health Services, County of Suffolk, is dismissed, for failure to perfect the appeal in accordance with the rules of this Court *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.8 [a]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the appellants Seaview Association of Fire Island, N. Y., and the Town of Islip.

In *Matter of Kusky v Town of Islip*(191 AD2d 633), this Court determined that the ocean beach at Seaview, which falls within the Town of Islip was subject to the provisions of Public Health Law § 1340 (2) (a), which mandates the installation of public toilets at bathing establishments. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for proceedings to determine, *inter alia,*the nature and location of the facilities. However, the appellant, Seaview Association of Fire Island, N. Y., Inc., then applied to the Department of Health Services, County of Suffolk (hereinafter the DOHS) for an exemption, pursuant to the amended version of the relevant provision of the State Sanitary Code, 10 NYCRR 6-2.3 (a), from providing the public toilets, and was granted the exemption. Seaview then moved to dismiss this proceeding as academic in light of the grant of the exemption.

Although Seaview and the Town of Islip contend that the Supreme Court erred in giving preclusive effect to this Court’s decision and order in light of the subsequent grant of the exemption, we find the Supreme Court’s determination correct in all respects. As implicitly found by the Supreme Court, in determining the previous appeal, this Court had applied, as it was bound to, the law in existence at the time of the appeal *604
      *(see, Matter of Alscot Investing Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Centre, 64*NY2d 921; *Matter of Mascony Transp. & Ferry Serv. v Richmond,*49 NY2d 969), namely, the amended version of the provision of the State Sanitary Code at issue therein, 10 NYCRR 6-2.3 (a).

The determination made by this Court upon the prior appeal was binding upon the appellants in this proceeding. It was, therefore, improper for Seaview to seek to avoid the effect thereof by thereafter obtaining an administrative determination which was effectively adverse to and in conflict with the decision and order of this Court and then attempting to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that it was academic. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
#### State, Plaintiff, vs. La Barge, Defendant.

*March 15*—

April *9, 1940.*

*451For the plaintiff there was a brief by the *Attorney Gen*eral, *Warren H. Resh,*assistant attorney general, *Edmund H. Drager,*district attorney of Vilas county, and *A. H.*Smith, special assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Resh*and *Mr. Smith.*

*Thomas L. St. Germaine*of Lac du Flambeau, for the defendant.

Martin, J.

It will serve no useful purpose to- again discuss the law applicable to the facts set out above. The question here certified must be answered in the affirmative upon the authority of *State v. Morrin*(1908), 136 Wis. 552, 117 N. W. 1006, and *State v. Johnson*(1933), 212 Wis. 301, 249 N. W. 284; also upon the authority of *Ward v. Race*Horse, 163 U. S. 504, 16 Sup. Ct. 1076, 41 L. Ed. 244, and *People ex rel. Kennedy v. Becker,*241 U. S. 556, 36 Sup. Ct. 705, 60 L. Ed. 1166, and the cases therein cited.

*By the Court.*— The question certified to this court is answered in the affirmative.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,160
<SECURITIES>                                     3,935
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                       705
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,335
<PP&E>                                           1,392
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,196
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,161
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,137
<CGS>                                            4,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (522)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered June 17 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00685

- CV

IN RE TRUE HEALTH DIAGNOST ICS, LLC, AND JEFFRE Y P. "BOOMER" CORNWELL, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 416

- 01046

- 2015



### O RDER

Before the Court is relators’ June 16, 2015 unopposed motion to dismiss the petition for

writ of mandamus. We GRANT the motion. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we

DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER each party to bear its own costs.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
Heather Clement 

TessmerAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 1, 2015

No. 04-15-00153-CV

Tina M. Allen SOUZA,

Appellant

v.

Heather Clement TESSMER,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-15319

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In this accelerated appeal, Appellant’s brief was due to be filed with this court on April 

27, 2015. On the due date, Appellant filed a first motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s

brief until May 27, 2015, or in the alternative, May 18, 2015—for an extension of twenty days. 

Appellant’s motion for a twenty-day extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief 

is due on May 18, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). 

_______________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
MARY B. HENNESSY

ATTORNEY AT LAW

P.O. Box 2536

Brenham, Texas 77834-2536 

Tele. (979) 277-0757

Fax: (979) 421-8226

October 26, 2015

Vivian Long, Clerk

Seventh Court of Appeals

PO Box 9540

Amarillo, Texas 79105-9540

Re: Cause No. 07-13-00353-CR; Terry James Fielder, Jr. v. State of Texas; In the Seventh of 

Appeals, Amarillo, Texas

Dear Ms. Roessler,

In accordance with Rule 48.4, I certify that on October 14, 2015, I sent a copy of this Court's 

Opinion to Terry Fielder at his last known address. That letter also advised Terry Fielder of his 

right to pursue a Petition for Discretionary Review according to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

68. The letter and opinion were mailed using certified mail. I am attaching a copy of the UPSS 

tracking history confirming delivery.

Sincerely,

/S/ MARY HENNESSY

Mary Hennessy

ACCEPTED

07-13-00353-CR

SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

AMARILLO, TEXAS

10/26/2015 2:00:13 PM

Vivian Long, Clerk

 FILED IN 7th COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 10/26/2015 2:00:13 PM VIVIAN LONG CLERK
USPS.com® - USPS Tracking® 10/25/15, 8:05 AM

https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tLabels=7015+0640+0001+4291+7221 Page 1 of 2

USPS Tracking Customer Service ›

Have questions? We're here to help.

Get Easy Tracking Updates ›

Sign up for My USPS.

Track It

Track all your packages from a dashboard.

No tracking numbers necessary.

Manage Incoming Packages

Sign up for My USPS ›

®

Postal Product:

Certified Mail

Features:

Product & Tracking Information

DATE & TIME STATUS OF ITEM LOCATION

October 23, 2015 , 7:56 am Delivered TENNESSEE

COLONY, TX 75880 

Your item was delivered at 7:56 am on October 23, 2015 in TENNESSEE COLONY, TX 75880.

October 21, 2015 , 8:27 am Available for Pickup TENNESSEE

COLONY, TX 75880 

October 21, 2015 , 8:27 am Arrived at Unit TENNESSEE

COLONY, TX 75861 

October 16, 2015 , 11:20 am Arrived at USPS Facility NTX P&DC 

October 14, 2015 , 9:47 pm Departed USPS Facility ESSEX

JUNCTION, VT 05452 

October 14, 2015 , 9:13 pm Arrived at USPS Origin

Facility

ESSEX

JUNCTION, VT 05452 

October 14, 2015 , 6:16 pm Departed Post Office SOUTH

BURLINGTON, VT 05403 

October 14, 2015 , 4:50 pm Picked Up SOUTH

BURLINGTON, VT 05403 

Available Actions

Text Updates

Email Updates

Tracking Number: 70150640000142917221

Updated Delivery Day: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 

TM

Track Another Package

Tracking (or receipt) number

English Customer Service USPS Mobile Register / Sign In
USPS.com® - USPS Tracking® 10/25/15, 8:05 AM

https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tLabels=7015+0640+0001+4291+7221 Page 2 of 2

Copyright © 2015 USPS. All Rights Reserved.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Youtube

Search or Enter a Tracking Number
EXHIBIT 24.6

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all by these presents, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Mike
Kinney and Robert E. Brummels, or either of them, as my attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution, to execute in their respective names, individually and in my capacity as director:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the 2007 Annual Report) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all
amendments thereto, and to file the 2007 Annual Report, any and all such amendments, and exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission and granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any
substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof; and

(ii) the Rule 13e-3 Transaction
Statement Under Section 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Schedule 13E-3 (the Schedule 13E-3) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the Schedule 13E-3, any and all such amendments, and
exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission and granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24thday of March, 2008.



/s/ James KrauseJames Krause




|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|STATE OF NEBRASKA |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  | ) |  | ss.
|COUNTY OF PIERCE  |  | ) |  |    

On this 24thday of March, 2008, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came James Krause, known to me to be the identical person who signed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.

|       |  |  |  |  |  |                                 
|------ |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------
|       |  |  | 
|       |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Kristine Wacker             
|{Seal} |  |  |  |  |  | Notary Public                   
|       |  |  | 
|       |  |  |  |  |  | My commission expires: 2-28-2010
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
REGINALD NATHANIEL M ALLARD, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2024

- 1148

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:23

- cv

- 01504

- EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.

______________________
Before M OORE , Chief Judge

, T ARANTO and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
On October 13, 2023, Reginald Nathaniel Mallard filed a notice of appeal at the United States Court of Federal Claims. Because Mr. Mallard’s case was still proceeding before th at court
, this court directed the parties to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I n response , t he United States urges dismissal. Mr. Mallard has not responded

. Case: 24-1148 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 02/28/2024MALLARD v. US 2

A n appellant must file a notice of appeal that “designates “ the judgmen t ” or “ appeal able order ” from “which the appeal is being taken.” Fed R. App. P. 3 (c)(1)(B). This requirement is “jurisdictional in nature, and [its] satisfaction is a prerequisite to appellate review.” Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (citation omitted). Mr. Mallard’s notice of appeal designates an October 11, 2023 order

. * However, no order from that date appears on the trial court’s docket. At the time Mr. Mallard filed his appeal, the only orders listed on the docket were (1) an order accepting Mr. Mal lard’s non

- compliant document and (2) an order granting Mr. Mallard leave to proceed in forma pauperis . Mr. Mallard’s notice of appeal does not indicate any intent to seek review of those favorable decisions.

The Court of Federal Claims later enter ed fina l judgment on November 17, 2023, but the notice of appeal was filed before that date and likewise cannot be underst oo d as intending to seek review of th at judgment

. As Mr. Mallard

was specifically informed in th e show cause order, if he wished to appeal from the final judgment in his case , he needed to timely file a new notice of appeal or amend his existing notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Because he did neither, the final judgment is not properly before this court. Since Mr. Mall ard ’s notice of appeal fails to identify any appealable order, we dismiss.
Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The appeal is dismissed

.

* Mr. Mallard’s notice of appeal also identifies eleven“Points of Appeal,” but there is no apparent connection between those points and any of the orders issued by the trial court. ECF No. 1

- 2 at 2

– 3. Case: 24-1148 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 02/28/2024MALLARD v. US 3

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs

.

February 28 , 202 4 Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-1148 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 02/28/2024