alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.6




Exhibit 4.6

 

 

NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AWARD

APPLIED DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

 

RESTATED TO REFLECT THE REVERSE STOCK SPLIT AS OF APRIL 5, 2004

 

Name of Option Recipient: J. Michael Norris   

 

 

On January 12, 2004, the Company awarded you a stock option. You were granted an option to buy 2,500 Shares of the Common Stock at the price of $4.50 per share on or after the dates shown in the following schedule:

 



	 	 	 	
Number of Shares for Which

	 	 	
Date
	
Option is First Exercisable

	 	 	
January 12, 2005
	
                   833

	 	 	
January 12, 2006 
	
                   833

	 	 	
January 12, 2007 
	
                   834






 

and no later than January 12, 2012 (the “Option Expiration Date”). 

 

IMPORTANT: By signing below, you agree to be bound by, and acknowledge receipt of, the attached Terms and Conditions of this Non-Qualified Stock Option Award. Furthermore, although this option is not being awarded to you pursuant to the Applied Digital Solutions, Inc., 2003 Flexible Stock Plan (the “Plan”), the rules and terms of the Plan shall be incorporated herein and apply to your option as if it were being granted under the Plan (except to the extent the Plan conflicts with this letter, in which case, this letter shall govern). 

 

APPLIED DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC.

 

/s/ Kay E. Langsford-Loveland 

Kay E. Langsford-Loveland 

Vice President, Administration

 

 

Read and agreed to this 

 

3 day of June, 2004.

 

/s/ J. Michael Norris

J. Michael Norris
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2716 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2716

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to not apply changes under 
 Public Law 115-97 pertaining to the kiddie tax to children receiving 
                  certain military survivor benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to not apply changes under 
 Public Law 115-97 pertaining to the kiddie tax to children receiving 
                  certain military survivor benefits.

    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 ``Protecting Gold Star Children Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF PERMANENT KIDDIE TAX RATES TO CHILDREN RECEIVING 
              CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVOR BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1(j)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) Treatment of children with certain military 
                survivor benefits.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 
                any child who received a benefit under laws 
                administered by the Secretary of Defense or the 
                Secretary of Veterans Affairs which--
                            ``(i) is received by a child by reason of 
                        the child being the survivor of a deceased 
                        member of the Armed Forces or of a deceased 
                        veteran, and
                            ``(ii) is included in the gross income of 
                        such child.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-5400.

#### Alejandra Tapia, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1104, 131 S. Ct. 817,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9593.

178 L. Ed. 2d 551,

December 10, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris granted. Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 707.
No. 10-183.

#### Fred Samson, Petitioner v. James Manley, et al.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 814,

178 L. Ed. 2d 548,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9510.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 962, 131 S. Ct. 468, 178 L. Ed. 2d 289, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7994.
No. 10-7231.

#### Frederick Bradley Nowell, Sr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 679,

178 L. Ed. 2d 516,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9347,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 10-70.

#### Terence Finnan, Petitioner v. Kevin K. Ryan, et al.

562 U.S. 952, 131 S. Ct. 280,

178 L. Ed. 2d 250,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7845.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 331.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2667 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2667

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make employers of spouses 
    of military personnel eligible for the work opportunity credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make employers of spouses 
    of military personnel eligible for the work opportunity credit.

    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 ``Military Spouses Employment Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR THE WORK 
              OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
subparagraph (I), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J) 
and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(K) a qualified military spouse.''.
    (b) Qualified Military Spouse.--Subsection (d) of section 51 of 
such Code is amended by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (15) as 
paragraphs (13) through (16), respectively, and by inserting after 
paragraph (9) the following new paragraph:
            ``(11) Qualified military spouse.--The term `qualified 
        military spouse' means any individual who is certified by the 
        designated local agency as being a spouse (determined as of the 
        hiring date) of a member of the Armed Forces of the United 
        States who is serving on a period of extended active duty which 
        includes the hiring date. For purposes of the preceding 
        sentence, the term `extended active duty' means any period of 
        active duty pursuant to a call or order to such duty for a 
        period in excess of 90 days or for an indefinite period.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act 
to individuals who begin work for the employer after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### Com. v. Gainer

05/17/2016

60 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 136 A.3d 1037
# DLA, aviation industry focus on customer outcomes, innovation at Captains of Industry event 

/ Published Aug. 5, 2015
Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
EXHIBIT 10.38
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
          This Addendum (the “Addendum”) is made effective as of the 12th day ofDecember, 2003 and is intended to amend a certain Employment Agreement (the“Agreement”) by and between Erie Indemnity Company and Douglas F. Zieglereffective as of December 15, 1999.
          WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of theCompany and its Shareholders to secure the continued employment of theExecutive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and
          WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company at its meeting of December9, 2003 has again agreed to extend the term of the Agreement for a period ofone (1) additional year as contained herein; and
          WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.
          NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree asfollows:
          1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with respect to the Term is hereby amendedby extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2005.
          2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full forceand effect.         ATTEST:       ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY               /s/ Jan R. Van Gorder By: /s/ F. William Hirt  Jan R. Van Gorder     F. William Hirt  Secretary     Chairman of the Board         WITNESS:                     /s/ Cori Coccarelli   /s/ Douglas F. Ziegler  Cori Coccarelli     Douglas F. Ziegler  Executive Secretary     378 Ridgeview Drive        Erie, PA 16505
27
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17085]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan; 
National Park of American Samoa; Notice of Approval of Record of 
Decision

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended) and the regulations 
promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Part 
1505.2), the Department of the Interior, National Park Service has 
prepared and approved a Record of Decision for the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement/General Management Plan, National Park of American 
Samoa.
    The National Park Service will implement the selected plan 
(identified as the proposed action in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for the General Management Plan issued in February 1998) as 
soon as practical. This option and three other alternatives were 
detailed and analyzed in the Final and Draft Environmental Impact 
Statements (latter issued in December, 1996).
    Copies of the approved Record of Decision may be obtained either 
from the Superintendent, National Park of American Samoa, Pago Pago, 
American Samoa 96799, or by phone request at (684) 633-7083; or from 
the Superintendent, Pacific Islands Support Office, 300 Ala Moana 
Boulevard, Box 50165, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850, or by phone request at 
(808) 541-2693.

    Dated: June 15, 1998.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 98-17085 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
No. 10-284.

#### City of Colton, California, Petitioner v. American Promotional Events, Inc.-West, et al.

562 U.S. 1062, 131 S. Ct. 646,

178 L. Ed. 2d 480,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9102.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 614 F.3d 998 and 390 Fed. Appx. 749.
No. 10-6728.

#### Sugentino Percel, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1026, 131 S. Ct. 544,

178 L. Ed. 2d 408,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8389.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 417.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.03    
    


INVESTMENT ELECTION FORM
VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN  


Direction of Investments  


The
undersigned Participant hereby directs that the measurement of the Participant's account be determined as if it were invested in the fund options as indicated below. 


DEFERRALS OF SALARY AND/OR BONUSES BEGINNING 1/1/2005

WILL BE TREATED AS IF INVESTED AS INDICATED BELOW.  


Enter your investment elections: 5% minimum/increments of 5%.

The total of the percentages must equal 100%.

You may invest in any one or more (including all) of the fund options.  



	

	      % Dreyfus Appreciation	 	      % T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Growth
	

      % Fidelity Intermediate Gov't	
 	

      % Vanguard Asset Allocation
	

      % Janus Worldwide	
 	

      % Vanguard Growth and Income
	

      % Liberty—Columbia Income	
 	

      % Vanguard Index 500
	

      % Oakmark	
 	

      % Vanguard Index Extended Market
	

 	
 	

      % AASelect Funds Money Market Select Fund
	







I understand that the elections I have chosen on this form shall remain in effect until I make a directive to change. 



	
 Participant's Signature	 	
 Date
	
«First Name» «Last Name»
 Participant's Name	
 	
«Emplid»
 Participant's Employee ID Number













QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.03
Exhibit
32.1








The
following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporation’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 and is not filed as
provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.





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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dynamics Research Corporation,
a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:





(1) the
Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and





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





Date:  March
      16, 2009
            /s/
      James P. ReganPresident,
      Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
No. 10-6037.

#### Gerald Thornton, Petitioner v. Bank of New York.

562 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 511,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8568.

178 L. Ed. 2d 379,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, denied.
No. 10-5263.

#### Robert McMillan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 504,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8567.

178 L. Ed. 2d 375,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 600 F.3d 434.
No. 09-1233.

#### Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, et al., Appellants v. Marciano Plata, et al.

562 U.S. 1056, 131 S. Ct. 631,

178 L. Ed. 2d 459,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9031.

November 23, 2010.

Motion of J. Clark Kelso, Receiver for Medical Healthcare for the California State Prisons, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time granted.
# C_2013274EN.01003301.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/33

---

Action brought on 17th July 2013 — ZZ v ECB

(Case F-73/13)

2013/C 274/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, Lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the ECB’s decision of 28 May 2013 imposing a disciplinary dismissal to the Applicant and the compensation of the moral prejudice he suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Central Bank dated 28 May 2013 imposing the disciplinary dismissal with effect from 31 August 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Central Bank dated 28 May 2013 imposing the disciplinary dismissal with effect from 31 August 2013;

| — | as a consequence, fully reinstate the Applicant with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, fully reinstate the Applicant with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name;

| — | in any case, compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any case, compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR;

| — | reimburse all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

reimburse all the costs.

---
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/17 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
Exhibit 10-7.1



DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE CASH BALANCE
PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1999)



AMENDMENT 1



Pursuant to Section 8 of the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Cash Balance Plan, as amended (Plan), Duke Energy Corporation
(Corporation) hereby amends Section 4.3 of the Plan, effective January 1, 1999, by adding a sentence to the end thereof that reads as follows:



Notwithstanding Sections 4.3 and 4.4 to the contrary, the Minimum Benefit feature of Section 4.3(e) of the Plan, as in effect prior to January 1, 1999, is
preserved herein and incorporated by reference.



IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, this amendment to the Plan is executed on behalf of the Corporation this 26 day of August, 1999.



DUKE ENERGY CORPORATIONBy:

/s/    CHRISTOPHER C.
ROLFEIts:

Vice PresidentCorporate Human Resources
# C_2013336EN.01000503.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Katalin Sebestyén v Kővári Zsolt Csaba and Others

(Case C-342/13)

2013/C 336/13

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Katalin Sebestyén

Applicant:

Defendants: Kővári Zsolt, Csaba OTP Bank, OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt., Raiffeisen Bank Zrt.

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes regarding a loan contract concluded by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Pénz- és Tőkepiaci Állandó Választottbíróság (Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes regarding a loan contract concluded by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Pénz- és Tőkepiaci Állandó Választottbíróság (Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market)?

1

| 2. | On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes concerning a loan contract entered into by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market, save in the exceptional cases provided for in the contract, regardless of the fact that the contract contains general information concerning differences between the procedure governed by Law LXXI of 1994 on Arbitration and ordinary legal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes concerning a loan contract entered into by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market, save in the exceptional cases provided for in the contract, regardless of the fact that the contract contains general information concerning differences between the procedure governed by Law LXXI of 1994 on Arbitration and ordinary legal proceedings?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilmer Torres, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 614]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered February 5, 2016, convicting him of bail jumping in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

*726Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
No. 09-11553.

#### Lawton Tyson, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1055, 131 S. Ct. 628,

178 L. Ed. 2d 456,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9011.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 887, 131 S. Ct. 219, 178 L. Ed. 2d 132, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7066.
No. 10-395.

#### M. R. Mikkilineni, Petitioner v. City of Houston, Texas, et al.

562 U.S. 1063, 131 S. Ct. 687,

178 L. Ed. 2d 481,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9150.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 435 Fed. Appx. 298.