alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN ITED STA TES D EP AR TM EN T OFTR AN SP OR TA TIO N F ED ER AL AV IA TIO N A DM IN ISTR AT ION Washin gton, D. C.
SPARental, LLC, DocketNo. AG C-16-13- 02 DBA MSI Aviation P. O. Box 104 Nanc y , KY 42544 Com pla ina nt,
v. Som erse t - P ulask i County Airport Board 222 Airport Road Somerset KY, 42501 Re sp on de nt.

JOI NT AP P LIC AT IONTO EST AB LISHRE SP ON SIV E P LEA DI NG SCH ED UL E

Th e pa rt ie s h e reby

re qu e st the fo llo wi ngsc he du le fo r t hefi lin gof

re sp on siv e ple a din g s:
Com pla ina nt’ s r e sp on se to R e sp on de nt’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss t o b e fi le d o n o r b e fo re the c los e of business on J uly

1, 2013. Respondent’s Reply

to be filed on or be fore the close of business on J uly

18, 2013.
s/ Rachel L . Owsley s/ Konrad Kuc zak Rache l Owsley Konra d Kuczak, Ohio Reg0011186 Be thany A. B ree tz Trial Attorne y for Complainant Attorney s for Responde nt 130 West S econd Stre et, Suite 1010 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 Day ton, OH 45402-1588 L ouisvill e, KY 40202- 3352 (937) 228- 8363 Telephone (5 02 ) 5 87 -3 40 0 T e le ph on e (9 37 ) 2 28 -0 52 0 F a c sim ile E Mail rowsley

@ stites.com E Mail your_lawyer @ sbc g lobal.netMEMORAN DUM

Complainant’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismis s is due on J une 10, 2013. Complainant’s counsel, a sole prac titioner, was injured on Ma y 28, 2013 suffe ringfra cture s to the orbit beneath his left eye, an entra pped nerve , and a seve re c oncussion. As a re sult, counsel has bee n unable to re ad ef fec tively or to perf orm many

of the routine duties of

his practice
. Com pla ina nt r esp ect fu lly

re qu e sts that th e tim e fo r C omp la ina nt t o f ile its re sp on se to Respondent’s Motion to Dismis s be extended until the close of business on July 1, 2013.
The unde rsigned has c ontacted Ra chel Ow sley , Esq., counsel for Respondent with respe ct to t his re qu e st. She ha s a gre e d to e xten d th e tim e for Co mp lai nant to fi le the re sp on se to Respondent’s Motion to Dismis s and re quests that, to acc ommodate counse l’s previously schedule d vacation, Respondent’s Reply be due on July

18, 2013.
s/ Rachel L . Owsley s/ Konrad Kuc zak Rache l Owsley Konra d Kuczak, Ohio Reg0011186 Be thany A. B ree tz Trial Attorne y for Complainant Attorney s for Responde nt 130 West S econd Stre et, Suite 1010 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 Day ton, OH 45402-1588 L ouisvill e, KY 40202- 3352 (937) 228- 8363 Telephone (5 02 ) 5 87 -3 40 0 T e le ph on e (9 37 ) 2 28 -0 52 0 F a c sim ile E Mail rowsley

@ stites.com E Mail your_lawyer @ sbc g lobal.net

CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE The unde rsigned her eby

c e r ti f ie s that a true c opy

of the for eg oing Complaint was se rved upon J e s s ie D i G r e g o r

y , O f f ic e o f th e Ch ie f Co un s e l, b y e ma il in g it to Je s s ie
. D iGr e g o r y @ f a a . g o vand upon FAADocke t Clerk, by emailingit to 9-AWA-AGC-PART-16@f aa.g ov and upon Ms. Rache l Ow sle y by e ma ili ngit t o r ow sle y @s tit e s. c om a nd up on Ms. B e tha

ny B re e tz by ema il in git t o bbree tz@st ites.com on J une 5, 2013.
s/ Konrad Kuc zak Konra d Kuczak: Ohio Reg . 0011186
STATE EX REL. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

401A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 19, 2019

Jennifer T. Harrod, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, For Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

Teresa L. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, For Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

Margaret A. Force, Assistant Attorney General, For Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, For Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

Kiran H. Mehta, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Molly McIntosh Jagannathan, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Matthew D. Quinn, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Sierra Club.

Peter H. Ledford, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Sustainable Energy Association.

Benjamin Smith, Regulatory Counsel, For N.C. Sustainable Energy Association.

Gudrun Thompson, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Justice Center, et al.

David L. Neal, Attorney at Law, For N.C. Justice Center, et al.

David T. Drooz, Chief Counsel, For N.C. Utilities Commission-Public Staff.

Lucy E. Edmondson, Staff Attorney, For N.C. Utilities Commission-Public Staff.

Bridget M. Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Sierra Club.

Dorothy E. Jaffe, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Sierra Club.

Matt Burke, Solicitor General Fellow, For Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

Chris Ayers, Staff Attorney, For N.C. Utilities Commission-Public Staff.

Layla Cummings, Staff Attorney, For N.C. Utilities Commission-Public Staff.

Megan Jost, Staff Attorney, For N.C. Utilities Commission-Public Staff.

Nadia Luhr, Staff Attorney, For N.C. Utilities Commission-Public Staff.

*487The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 18th of July 2019 by Appellees:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of July 2019."

Appellees shall have up to and including the 25th day of September 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
#### Mbaba Siby et al., Appellants, v A&Z Car Wash Sales et al., Defendants, and Otto Rusch Contracting Corp., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[719 NYS2d 566]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered on or about October 20, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained by an employee of a car wash, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs sleeve and hand got caught in the chain that drove the wash’s conveyor system as he attempted to correct an alignment problem with the dolly on which the cars were placed. The motion was properly granted in the absence of evidence that the wiring and electrical system installed by respondent caused the accident. Indeed, plaintiffs deposition testimony established that, although an on/off switch and lockout key were within his reach, he did not deactivate the conveyor system before attempting to correct the problem with the dolly, rendering irrelevant his expert’s opinion that the shutdown and restart system did not provide enough time for a worker to correct a jam or enough warning for a worker to extricate himself from the system. The expert’s further assertion that *414the system should have been designed to automatically stop the conveyor whenever this type of alignment problem occurred is conclusory, and, like his first opinion, simply ignores that plaintiff was working within two feet of the buttons and a key that could have fully deactivated the system and prevented anyone at another location from reactivating it. We would also note the absence of any evidence of industry or regulatory standards to support the contention that the system’s warning time was too short. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.
Exhibit 32

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Thomas Glover,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of  Vasomedical,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the  Company  for the  fiscal  year
          ended  May  31,  2006,   (the   "Report")   fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: August 28, 2006

                                  /s/ Thomas Glover
                                  -------------------------------------
                                  Thomas Glover
                                  President and Chief Executive Officer





I, Thomas W. Fry, Chief Financial Officer of Vasomedical,  Inc. (the "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the  Company  for the  fiscal  year
          ended  May  31,  2006,   (the   "Report")   fully  complies  with  the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: August 28, 2006

                                  /s/ Thomas W. Fry
                                  -----------------------
                                  Thomas W. Fry
                                  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Noble Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James C. Day, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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:

      (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.


May 15, 2003                            /s/ JAMES C. DAY
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        James C. Day
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                        of Noble Corporation

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Noble Corporation and will be retained by Noble Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Joseph Gardner, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Boundless
Corporation;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
      ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures, and presented in this report my conclusions about
      the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
      of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

      5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

            a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
      design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting.


Date: August 31, 2005                           /s/ Joseph Gardner
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Joseph Gardner
                                                Chief Financial Officer
Second Amendment to Executive Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.25 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (2003 Amendment and Restatement) 
 WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan is currently maintained pursuant to a 2003 Amendment and
Restatement and the First Amendment thereto (“Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend the Plan
further; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth: 
  

	 	1.	Effective December 31, 2003, The Table of Contents of the Plan, Line 1.34 is hereby amended to provide as follows: 

 1.34 “Withdrawal Amount” 
  

	 	2.	Effective December 31, 2003, as it relates to distributions of Deferrals of Restricted Stock Awards and effective January 31, 2004 as it relates to
distributions of all other Deferrals, Article 3, Section 3.4 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 

 3.4 Form of Distribution. 
 All distributions shall be made in cash. 
  

	 	3.	Effective January 31, 2004, the last sentence in Article 3, Section 3.5 shall be deleted and replaced by the following sentence: 

 The Withdrawal Amount shall be paid in cash. 
  

	 	4.	Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain entirely unchanged and continue in full force and effect.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized representative effective as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Charles E. Jarrett
	Title:	 	Vice President & Secretary
exv10w74






Exhibit 10.74




AMENDMENT NO. 1




TO



SEVERANCE AGREEMENT (NON-CHANGE IN CONTROL)


This Amendment No. 1 to Severance Agreement (Non-Change in Control) dated as of and effective
January 25, 2010 (the “Amendment”), is by and between                      (the “Employer”), and
                     (the “Executive”).



WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive are parties to a Severance Agreement (Non-Change in
Control) dated as of and effective December 18, 2009 (the “Agreement”);



WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive wish to enter into this Amendment in order to (i) delete
the restrictive covenant regarding competition contained in the Agreement and (ii) modify the
restrictive covenant regarding non-solicitation contained in the Agreement, in order to better
reflect the intention of the parties;



NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the
Employer and the Executive hereby agree as follows:





	 	1.	 	Amendment to Section 6.2, Non-Solicitation. Section 6.2 of the Agreement is
hereby amended in its entirety so as to read as follows:
	 
	 	 	 	“6.2 Non-Solicitation. The Executive agrees that during the Executive’s employment
and at all times thereafter during the Severance Period, the Executive will not,
directly or indirectly, individually or on behalf of any other person, firm,
corporation or other entity, knowingly solicit, aid or induce any employee of the
Employer to leave such employment in order to accept employment with or render services
to or with any other person, firm, corporation or other entity unaffiliated with the
Employer or knowingly take any action to materially assist or aid any other person,
firm, corporation or other entity in identifying or hiring any such employee.”






	 	2.	 	Amendment to Section 6.4, Competition. Section 6.4 of the Agreement is hereby
amended in its entirety so as to read as follows:
	 
	 	 	 	“6.4 [Intentionally Deleted]”
	 
	 	3.	 	No Other Amendments. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement remains
in full force and effect.





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	[NAME OF EMPLOYER]	 	 	 	EXECUTIVE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 	 

	 	 
	Title:

	 	 	 	 	 	Address:
04/02/2010 10;33 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 12001/002 

Stephen R. Snyder 

J;ick C. Birch 

R»ii(i»ll L. Morgan 

Laura E. Knufman 

nydeivBircli 

&Mor£an 

i.i.p 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

Ki'V 

200 West Main Street 

Syrsicii$<:, Indiana 46567 

Telephone: S74-457-33CX) 

Facsimik: 574-457-2056 

wurw.sbmlawfi rm.coni 

March 1,2010 

Hearing Docket 

Attn: Hearing Docket Cleric 

FAA, AGC-400 

Room 2014 

600 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

(ijFlOSi) OUtf ^c^O/O-Qjfa 

Re: RBK Development 2008SO700241 

Request for Hearing 

Gentlemen: 

Enclosed is a request for hearing on behalf of RBK Development, Inc. d/b/a Superior Wood 

Products, 1058 West CR400 North, Warsaw, Indiana 46582. 

Very truly yours. 

^^-Si'^y'Dii/l^IR9ri & f^GA N , ,,r. 

SRS/kkc 

Enclosure 

ce: Mr. Gale L. Schaffer 

Stephen R. Saydcf—• 

sr.s@iibml awiuTn. com 
04/02/2010 10:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @l002/002 

REQUEST FOR HEARING 

TO: Hearing Docket, FAA 'j^ff; 

AGC-40 0 

Room 2014 

600 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Ann: Hearing Docket Clerk 

Pursuant to 14 CF.R. ?jl3.6, 1 hereby request a hearing in regard to the matter of RBK 

Development, No. 200t!SO700241 and the final nolice of proposed civil penally issued February 

22, 2010. 1 request that the hearing take place in Chicago, IJlinoi.sI designate the following person as attorney to represent the corporation in regard to this 

matter: 

Stephen R. Snyder, Esq. 

Attorney No. 413-43 

Snyder, Birch & Morgan M.H 

200 West Main St. 

Syracuse, Indiana 46567 

Telephone: (574) 457-3300 

srs@.sbmlaw firm.com 

Gale L. Schaffer 

KBK Development d/b/a Superior Wood Products 

1058 West CR 400 North, Warsaw. IN 46582 

CFRriFICAlKOFSl-:RVICl-: 

The undersigned certifies that on the 1'' day of March, 2010, a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing pleading was .served upon the f(illowing by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid: 

Rashawn Rich George, Esq. 

Attorney Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

PO Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Zachariah A. HINTON, Appellant.

WD 80958

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: October 2, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 13, 2018

Zachariah Hinton, Kansas City, appellant pro se.

Michael J. Hunt, Kansas City for respondent.

Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

Lisa White Hardwick, Judge

Zachariah Hinton appeals from his conviction for driving while revoked or suspended. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Because Hinton failed to provide us with a complete record, we must dismiss his appeal.

**FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY**

On September 12, 2016, the State charged Hinton with driving while revoked or suspended pursuant to Section 302.321, RSMo 2016. A bench trial was held on July 20, 2017, during which the court found Hinton guilty. Subsequently, the court sentenced Hinton to five days in the Jackson County Jail. Hinton appeals.

**ANALYSIS**

Although Hinton appears *pro se* in this appeal, "he is still generally held to the same standard as a licensed attorney." *City of St. Louis v. Hill* , 488 S.W.3d 156, 159 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). "The record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings, and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented *434by either appellant or respondent to the appellate court for decision. It is divided into two components; the legal file and the transcript." Rule 30.04(a). It is Hinton's duty to ensure that we receive the complete record on appeal, which includes a transcript of any relevant proceeding*.* *State v. Sumowski* , 794 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Mo. banc 1990) ; Rule 30.04(c).

Hinton's point on appeal alleges that the circuit court's finding of guilt was not supported by the evidence because the State failed to prove that the arresting officer had reason to believe Hinton was operating a motor vehicle with a suspended driver's license. In support of his appeal, Hinton provided a legal file containing certified copies of relevant documents. However, he failed to include a transcript of the July 20, 2017, bench trial. The State placed Hinton on notice of the transcript's absence in its brief, but he has failed to supplement the record. *See* Rule 30.04(d). Without this transcript, we are unable to subject Hinton's claim to meaningful review. *See* *Hill* , 488 S.W.3d at 160. Therefore, we must dismiss his appeal. *Id.*

**CONCLUSION**

Appeal dismissed.

All Concur.
Form of Letter Amd. (2011) to Performance RSU Award Agrmnt. (AFP Version)



 Exhibit 10.2(K) 

[Yahoo! Inc. Letterhead] 

                    , 2011 

 

	 	Re:	Letter Amendment to Performance Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (AFP Version - 2010) 


Dear                 : 

Reference is made to the Performance Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (AFP Version) between you and Yahoo! Inc. (the
“Company”) dated February 25, 2010 (the “Award Agreement”). Capitalized terms used in this letter agreement and the attached exhibit and not otherwise defined herein or therein will have the meanings ascribed to such terms
in the Award Agreement. 
 The purpose of this letter agreement is to amend the Award Agreement to provide that (1) for the
2011 Performance Year, the number of the Restricted Stock Units (if any) that will be credited to you with respect to such Performance Year will not be determined under Exhibit A attached to the Award Agreement but will instead be determined in
accordance with Exhibit 1 attached to this letter agreement, and (2) for the 2012 Performance Year, the Company will provide you the methodology for establishing the number of Restricted Stock Units to be credited with respect to such
Performance Year during the first quarter of the Performance Year. 
 This letter agreement does not modify any other terms of
the Award Agreement except as expressly set forth above (including, without limitation, the crediting of any Restricted Stock Units to you with respect to the 2010 Performance Year and the vesting and payment provisions applicable to any such
units). 
 If this letter accurately sets forth our agreement with respect to the foregoing matters, please sign the enclosed
copy of this letter and return it to me. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	Yahoo! Inc.
	[NAME, TITLE]


  

			
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
		
	By:	 	  

		 	[NAME]