alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO THE COMPANY’S 2009 SHARE AWARD AND INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Paragraph
5 of Appendix A of the Company’s 2009 Share Award and Incentive Plan, as set
forth below, is hereby deleted.


 


“5.          Gross-Up for Excess Parachute Payments Under Code Section 280G.
 The Committee is authorized to
provide in any Award that in the event that any Shares or cash to be paid to a
Participant in connection with a change in the ownership or effective control
of the Company or the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of the
Company, as described in Code Section 280G, pursuant to the Plan, an Award
or otherwise (including, without limitation, the acceleration of any payment,
award distribution or benefit) (the “Payment”) constitute an “excess parachute
payment” within the meaning of Code Section 280G, the Participant shall be
paid an additional amount (the “Gross-Up Payment”) such that the net amount
retained by the Participant after deduction of (i) any excise tax imposed
under Code Section 4999 and (ii) any federal, state and local income
and employment tax and excise tax imposed upon the Gross-Up Payment shall be
equal to the Payment. For purposes of determining the amount of the Gross-Up
Payment, the Participant shall be deemed to pay (I) federal income tax and
employment taxes at the highest marginal rate of federal income and employment
taxation in the calendar year in which the Gross-Up Payment is to be made and (II) state
and local income taxes at the highest marginal rate of taxation in the state and
locality of the grantee’s residence in the calendar year in which the Gross-Up
Payment is to be made, net of the maximum reduction in federal income taxes
that may be obtained from the deduction of such state and local taxes. The
grantee shall provide the Company with the information necessary to compute the
Gross-Up Payment, and the Company shall pay the grantee the Gross-Up Payment
not later than the last day of the calendar year next following the calendar
year in which the grantee pays the taxes referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of
the preceding sentence.”


 


1
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-2101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

FRANTZ DePIERRE,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA

The opinion of this Court, issued on March 17, 2010, should be

amended as follows.

On page 8, line 1 of footnote 2, insert "the" between "to" and

"confusion".

On page 9, line 4, replace "in all events" with "in any case".

On page 11, line 1, replace "were" with "was".

On page 12, line 2 of 2nd full paragraph, replace "powered" with

"powder".
Amendment to Bylaws of Applebee's International, Inc.
                             adopted April 26, 2007


     WHEREAS,  the Board of  Directors  deems it to be in the best  interests of
Applebee's International,  Inc. (the "Company") to amend its Bylaws as set forth
below.

     NOW, THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED,  that Article III, Section 1 of the Bylaws
of the Company be, and it hereby is, amended by deleting the first paragraph and
substituting in its place the following:

     "Section  1.  Number;  Election;  Terms.  The  business  and affairs of the
corporation shall be managed by the Board of Directors.  The number of directors
which shall constitute the whole Board of Directors of the corporation shall not
be less  than 9 nor more than 14.  The exact  number  of  directors  within  the
minimum and maximum  limitations  specified in the preceding  sentence  shall be
fixed  from  time to time by the Board of  Directors  pursuant  to a  resolution
adopted by the affirmative  votes of at least all but one of the entire Board of
Directors."
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.0

                      ADVANCED LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

        EXHIBIT 21 -- SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF JUNE 30, 1998

         The following is a list of significant subsidiaries of Advanced
Lighting Technologies, Inc., all of which are organized under the laws of the
State of Ohio, except where indicated:

         ADLT Realty Corp I, Inc.
         Advanced Cable Lite Corporation
         Advanced Lighting, Inc.
         Advanced Lighting Technologies Australia, Inc.
         APL Engineered Materials, Inc.
         Bio Light, Inc.
         Bright Ideas Advertising and Design, Inc.
         Deposition Sciences, Inc.
         Energy Efficient Products, Inc.
         H&F Management, Inc.
         HID Recycling, Inc.
         Lighting Resources International, Inc.
         Lighting Systems Leasing, Inc.
         Metal Halide Controls, Inc.
         Metal Halide Technologies, Inc.
         Microsun Technologies, Inc.
         Specialty Discharge Lighting, Inc.
         Venture Lighting International, Inc.

         Advanced Lighting Systems, Inc.
                  (organized under the laws of the State of Arizona)
         Advanced Lighting Technologies Canada, Inc.
                  (organized under the laws of Ontario)
         Advanced Lighting Technologies Europe Ltd.
                  (organized under the laws of the United Kingdom)
         Advanced Lighting Technologies Ltd.
                  (organized under the laws of the United Kingdom)
         Ballastronix (Delaware), Inc.
                  (a Delaware corporation)
         Ballastronix, Inc.
                  (organized under the laws of Canada)
         Canadian Lighting Systems Holding, Inc.
                  (organized under the laws of Canada)
         Pacific Lighting, Inc.
                  (organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands)
         Parry Power Systems, Ltd.
                  (organized under the laws of the United Kingdom)
         Ruud Lighting, Inc.
                  (organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin)
         Venture Lighting International, Ltd.
                  (organized under the laws of the United Kingdom)
         Venture Lighting SRL
                  (organized under the laws of Italy)
JAN-22-2014 10:42 FAA RENTON 425 227 1320 P.02/02



### Boeing Model777 External Security: FAA-2013-0959, SC lS-504-SC

The certification basis statementfor Special Condition 25-504-SC is i.n error. It stated: "UnderTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CPR) 21.17, The Boeing Company must show thatthe Boeing Model 777-200,

..300; and -300ER series airplanes meetthe applicable provisions of14 CFR part25, 

### as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25- 128.'' The certification

### basis for each Boeing Model 777 airplane is correctly shown below: For Model 777-200 airplanes--Title 14 CFRpart 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-82. For Model777-300 airplanes--Title 14 CFRpart25, as amended 

### by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25a86 with the exception listed: Sec. 25.853(d)(3), Compartment interiors, at Amendment**25~82.** For Model777-300ER airplanes--Title 14 CFRpart 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1 through Amendment 25-98 

### with 

### the exception listed: Sec. 25.853(d)(J), Compartment interiors, at Amendment 25-82. In**addition~** the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections ofthe applicable part that are notrelevantto these special 

### conditions. Special conditions, 

### as defined in Sec. 11.19, are issued in accordance with Sec. 11.38 and become part ofthe type certificationbasis in accordance with Sec. 21.101.

TOTAL P.02
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.59


                                   ATARI, INC.

        DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANT'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN


Target annual bonuses are set for each executive based upon a percentage of base
salary. Bonuses are calculated based on three components, one of which relates
to the U.S. Company's and/or the business unit's profit and revenue results, one
of which is measured against worldwide cash flow, profit and revenue results,
and in the case of studio-based executives, one of which is based on the
timeliness of product delivery. Bonuses are paid after the end of the fiscal
year after the audit is complete. If the Company's worldwide cash flow
attainment for the fiscal year is less than 80% of the Company's plan, no bonus
is required to be paid for the fiscal year; bonuses then become discretionary.
If profits and/or revenue exceed plan for the fiscal year the bonus rate is
accelerated for the incremental profits and revenue above plan, with a maximum
of 150% payout of the bonus target.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3788 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3900 Darrow Road in Stow, Ohio, as the 

‘‘Corporal Joseph A. Tomci Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3788 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CORPORAL JOSEPH A. TOMCI POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 3900 Darrow Road in Stow, 

5 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Jo6 seph A. Tomci Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Joseph A. 

11 Tomci Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 6, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3862 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3862

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Benz[cd]indolium, 1-ethyl-2-
 [1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2,2,4-trimethyl-6-quinolinyl]-
                               ,chloride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 2009

   Mr. Watt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on Benz[cd]indolium, 1-ethyl-2-
 [1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2,2,4-trimethyl-6-quinolinyl]-
                               ,chloride.

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

SECTION 1. BENZ[CD]INDOLIUM, 1-ETHYL-2-[1,2,3,4-TETRAHYDRO-1-(2-
              HYDROXYETHYL)-2,2,4-TRIMETHYL-6-QUINOLINYL]-,CHLORIDE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Benz[cd]indolium,   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        1-ethyl-2-                                                         31/2011.......
                        [1,2,3,4-
                        tetrahydro-1-(2-
                        hydroxyethyl)-
                        2,2,4-trimethyl-6-
                        quinolinyl]-
                        ,chloride. (CAS
                        No. 63817-45-8)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        2921.59.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Dear Mr. Faulk, 

tim richmond <kalaupapatim@hotmail.com> 

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:09 PM 

Faulk, Scott (OST) 

EAS Contract for Kalaupapa, HI 

~ .. ·!- ~ 

.. :·:·.i; 

I am a worker and resident of Kalaupapa and rely on the air service to and from Kalaupapa. Makani Kai has been 

paramount in providing exceptional service and aloha to the Staff and Patients that live and work here. They have You 

recently received a letter from the Mayor of Maui Co. supporting Mokulele Airlines as receiving the contract. I will 

respectfully state the he knows little or nothing about the needs and wants of Kalaupapa. Mokulele Airlines is a fine 

carrier it is just not who we feel will service Kalaupapa and our needs the best. 

It is my impression that the EAS is here to provide a needed service to a community that has no other options to get out 

except flying or hiking. Our needs in Kalaupapa have nothing to do with Maui. Our needs have to do with frequent and 

affordable air service to Honolulu and Topside Molokai. Makani Kai has worked with us to provide the schedule that 

would be best for us and works for them. They have given discounted fares to the Patients and Residents which helps us 

all, as some need to fly frequently. It seems that the wants and needs of the Community that is receiving the EAS should 

outweigh the wants of someone who does not even come to Kalaupapa. I hope that you will consider what we, as a 

community, want over what a politician that is not involved with Kalaupapa wants. 

Thank-You, 

Tim Richmond 

Food Service Supervisor 

Kalaupapa Settlement 

808-567-6925 

1
June 12, 2012

Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Delta - Royal Air Maroc, Docket DOT-OST-2000-7738

Dear Mr. Gretch,

By Notices date October 22, 2004, and Oct ober 11, 2000, in Docket DOT-OST-200-7738, the Department granted Statements of Authorization authorizing reciprocal code-share services by Delta and Royal Air Maroc. Consistent with Department requirements, Delta and Royal Air Maroc hereby notify the Department that they will terminate all reciprocal code-share services, effective June 20, 2012.

Please let us know if you require any furt her information regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Alexander Van der Bellen Don H. Hainbach Managing Director – Government Affairs G AROFALO G OERLICH H AINBACH PC & Associate General Counsel Delta Air Lines, Inc. Counsel for Royal Air Maroc

cc:

Robert Wirick (American) robert.wirick@aa.com
Dan Weiss (United Continental) dan.weiss@united.com Jonathan Linde (United Continental) jonathan.linde@united.com Steve Morrissey (United Continental) steve.morrissey@united.com Howard Kass (US Airways) howard_kass@usairways.com Benjamin Slocum (US Airways) benjamin

. slocum @ usairways

. com
#### Mildred Centeno et al., Appellants, v Regine’s Originals, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[773 NYS2d 62]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered December 18, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

On September 2, 2000, plaintiff entered Regine’s, a women’s and children’s clothing and juvenile furniture store owned by defendants, located at 178 East 116th Street in Manhattan. *211While clothes shopping for her son, plaintiff approached a rack of clothing, the base of which was covered with clothing that lay scattered on the floor. On the base of the rack, which was rectangular, stood a vertical pole that had a horizontal bar for clothing. When plaintiff, wearing sneakers at the time, attempted to step over the clothing, her foot hit the covered base of the rack, causing her to trip and fall and sustain injuries to her right knee. After her fall, plaintiffs husband pushed the fallen clothing away and observed the beige, wooden, rectangular base, which was “turned at an angle, and . . . extend[ed] into the area between the racks that [she had been] walking in.” According to plaintiff, there were many racks of clothing in the store and, in the area where she fell, they were bunched closely together. After the completion of discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that the clothing rack was an open and obvious condition, readily observable to anyone using his or her senses and therefore was not a condition that defendants had a duty to remedy. Supreme Court accepted the argument and dismissed the complaint. We reverse.

The motion court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that the rack base, completely covered with and concealed by clothing, was not an inherently dangerous condition and was readily observable by the use of one’s senses. There is no bright line test for determining what is open and obvious. The test is whether “[a]ny observer reasonably using his or her senses would see” the condition *(Tagle v Jakob,*97 NY2d 165, 170 [2001]). Since the test incorporates a reasonableness standard, it is fact-specific and usually presents a question for resolution by the trier of the fact (see *Sanna v Wal-Mart Stores,*271 AD2d 595 [2000]). In any event, the degree to which a dangerous condition is open and visible goes to the issue of comparative fault (see *Cohen v Shopwell, Inc.,*309 AD2d 560 [2003]).

We note that notice of the condition is not an issue on appeal. In any event, plaintiffs husband, on an earlier visit to the store that day, had observed that “the entire area at the bottom of the rack was covered with clothing” and that “[n]o base was visible.” Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We haveissued our reports dated September 5, 2007, accompanying the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule included in the Form 10-K for the year endedJune 30, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of saidreports in the Registration Statements of SPACEHAB, Incorporated on Forms S-8(File No. 333-36779, effective November 3, 1997, FileNo. 333-43159, effective December 24, 1997, and FileNo. 333-43181, effective December 24, 1997) and Form S-4 (File No.No. 333-126772, effective September 6, 2005).
| /s/ PMB Helin Donovan, LLP |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |
| Houston, Texas             |
| September 21, 2007         |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0422 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JACK ELDON JARVEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________ **ORDER** Upon consideration of Counsel’s motion to dismiss the above entitled cause due to A ppellant’s death, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above matter is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 12 2021

08/12/2021
Case Number: DA 19-0422
Grant of Extension of Time

 PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0198

IN THE MATTER OF 

M.D.U-N., 

Youths in Need of Care.

GRANT OF EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time, 

and good cause appearing therefore, the Appellant is granted an extension of 

time until September 16, 2020, to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 24 2020

07/24/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0198
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                  |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:             |  |                            
|November 19, 2004 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | John P. Manning            
|                  |  | Principal Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
GEORGE ARTHUR RICHIE , Petitioner

. N o . 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0353 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015

- 127292

- 001 The Honorable Jay R. Adleman , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent George Arthur Richie , Tucson Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 9-13-2018STATE v. RICHIE Decision of the Court

2 P E R C U R I A M : ¶1 George Richie seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post

- conviction relief , filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s first petition

. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 576

- 77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the petition. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the pe tition for review. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of discretion. ¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.