alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.10    
    


 
  AMENDED SCHEDULE TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
  
    SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS    
    



	OFFICER OR EXECUTIVE
 
	 	MULTIPLE

	James D. Lightner	 	2.5
	Thomas W. Dyk	 	2
	Peter R. Scherer	 	2
	Bruce R. DeBoer	 	2
	Daniel G. Blanchard	 	2
	Clifford C. Drescher	 	2
	Rodney G. Mellott	 	2
	Douglas R. Harris	 	2
	John T. Sanchez	 	2












QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.10


AMENDED SCHEDULE TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Animal Disease Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Animal Disease Research Unit


Research Projects
                            More... Control Strategies for Bovine Babesiosis Control Strategies for Theileriosis Development of a Vaccine and Improved Diagnostics for Malignant Catarrhal Fever


Research Projects
                            More... Control Strategies for Bovine Babesiosis Control Strategies for Theileriosis Development of a Vaccine and Improved Diagnostics for Malignant Catarrhal Fever




Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# L_2008060EN.01002501.xml

| 5.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 60/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 60/25

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 February 2008

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Lebanon on certain aspects of air services

(2008/191/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2), in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence of the first subparagraph thereof and Article 300(3), first subparagraph,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | By a decision of 5 June 2003 the Council has authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements by a Community agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By a decision of 5 June 2003 the Council has authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements by a Community agreement.

| (2) | The Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Community an agreement with the Republic of Lebanon on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Decision of 5 June 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Community an agreement with the Republic of Lebanon on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Decision of 5 June 2003.

| (3) | The agreement has been signed on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2006/543/EC (2). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The agreement has been signed on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2006/543/EC (2).

| (4) | The agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Lebanon on certain aspects of air services is approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The president of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided in Article 8(1) of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2008.

For the Council

The President

D. RUPEL

---

(1)  Opinion of 6 September 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 215, 5.8.2006, p. 15.

2

---
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00325-JPK document 30 filed 08/13/18 page 1 of 1
H. R. 1760

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 215 Martin 

Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Robert M. La Follette, 

Sr. Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert M. La Follette, 

Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert 

M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00006-TLS-SLC

)

SHANNON MURPHY )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on August 3, 2016, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

Defendant, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney

and of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
and his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant

be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have sentence

imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and Recommendation

be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled before Judge Theresa

L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation

are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 3rd day of August 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
               THE REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR THE
               QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
               ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

       

<S>                                            <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               74,708
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       447,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                           15,269,213
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,770,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15,269,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                           9,850,543
<COMMON>                                              3,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                         400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     15,269,213
<SALES>                                           1,287,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,401,618
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       580,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  477,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     343,801
<INCOME-TAX>                                        123,386
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 220,415
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        220,415
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0

        

</TABLE>
[No. 21278-1-II.

Division Two.

September 26, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. David A. Andrews, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pacific County, No. 96-1-00152-8, Joel M. Penoyar, J., entered October 24, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Morgan, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

MICHAEL MILES, Individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

Shaffner & Shaffner Enterprises Inc., an 

Indiana Corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:14-cv-1752

Judge Rudy Lozano 

Magistrate Judge Christopher A 

Nuechterlein

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter having come before the Court on the Stipulation of the parties; the 

parties having entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release dated April 2 , 2015 

( the “Settlement Agreement”), and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the 

premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. This action shall be, and hereby is, dismissed without prejudice and without 

costs or attorney fees to any party except as provided in the Settlement 

Agreement.

2. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms

Settlement Agreement.

___________________________

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

The parties to this action, by their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate to entry of the

above Order.

Signatures:

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01752-RL-CAN document 24 filed 05/04/15 page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Owen B. Dunn, Jr.

Owen B. Dunn, Jr.

LAW OFFICE OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR.

The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center

4334 W. Central Avenue, Suite 222

Toledo, OH 43615

Telephone: (419) 241-9661

Fax: (419) 241-9737

Email: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

/s/ Randall L. Morgan

Randall L. Morgan

Stephen R. Snyder

SNYDER MORGAN LLP

200 West Main Street 

Syracuse, Indiana 46567 

srs@snydermorgan.com

rlm@snydermorgan.com

and

James J. O’Connor, Jr. 

BARRETT & MCNAGNY LLP

215 East Berry Street

P.O. Box 2263

Fort Wayne, IN 46802 

jjo@barrettlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01752-RL-CAN document 24 filed 05/04/15 page 2 of 2
[No. 18531-8-II.

Division Two.

October 10, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Martin Lee Duncan, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 93-1-01397-3, Robert L. Harris, J., entered July 15,1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1944 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1944

  To reduce temporarily the duty on certain articles of natural cork.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2005

Mr. Simmons (for himself, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Paul, Mr. Foley, Mr. Marshall, 
Mr. Thompson of California, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Kennedy of 
   Minnesota, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Kline, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. 
    Boswell, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Otter, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. McHugh) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reduce temporarily the duty on certain articles of natural cork.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ARTICLES OF NATURAL CORK.

    (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:

``      9902.45.03      Articles of         6%           No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         natural cork                                                       31/2008
                         provided for in
                         subheading
                         4503.90.60.......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) Case No. 3:15-CV-292 JD

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Michael Williams, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus case challenging two prison

disciplinary hearings (WCC 15-04-0090 and WCC 15-04-0091) held at the Westville Correctional

Facility on April 16, 2015. After he filed this petition, the Indiana Department of Correction

(“IDOC”) vacated the guilty finding and remanded the case for a new hearing. (DE 9-1.) Based on

the IDOC’s action, the respondent moves to dismiss the petition as moot. (DE 9.) As the respondent

points out, because the guilty finding has been vacated and the case remanded for a new hearing,

there is at present nothing for this court to review. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir.

2003) (prisoner can challenge prison disciplinary determination in habeas proceeding only when it

resulted in a sanction that lengthened the duration of his confinement). 

Williams was granted up to November 30, 2015, in which to file a response. (DE 11.) He was

cautioned that if he failed to respond by the deadline, the court would rule on the motion without

waiting any longer. (Id.) The deadline has passed and Williams has not responded to the motion.

Nevertheless, Williams has succeeded here as his charges and sanctions have been reversed. Thus,

this case must be dismissed because there is no case or controversy to adjudicate. Hadley, 341 F.3d

at 664. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed. If Williams is dissatisfied with the results of the
new hearing, he is free to file a new habeas petition after exhausting his administrative remedies.

For these reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (DE 9) and DISMISSES this

case.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: December 15, 2015

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                   19,044
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       22
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                         26,836
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             146,259
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    1,694
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      1,696
<LOANS>                                 295,559
<ALLOWANCE>                               3,622
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          501,325
<DEPOSITS>                              400,020
<SHORT-TERM>                             12,792
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                       5,461
<LONG-TERM>                              48,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  3,252
<OTHER-SE>                               30,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          501,325
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          11,888
<INTEREST-INVEST>                         4,091
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            425
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         16,404
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                        6,862
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        8,519
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                     7,885
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               390
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          161
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                           6,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           2,820
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                2,208
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              2,208
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.56
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                             3.78
<LOANS-NON>                                 270
<LOANS-PAST>                                288
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                              0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           1,500
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          3,405
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               402
<RECOVERIES>                                229
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         3,622
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      3,622
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Colon, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), rendered December 18, 1981, modified, on the law, to the extent only of reversing and setting aside the sentence for attempted murder in the second degree and remanding the matter to the trial court for resentence on that count and, except as so modified, affirmed.

Defendant was charged with attempted murder in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree. After a bench trial, the fourth count, that of assault in the second degree, was dismissed as a lesser included count. Defendant was found guilty on the three other counts. He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 71⁄2 to 15 years, as a violent felony offender, on the counts charging attempted murder in the second degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and a concurrent term of 5 to 15 years on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

We find the sentence on the count charging attempted murder in the second degree to have been improper, and the prosecutor now so concedes. Penal Law § 70.02 (1) (a) defines a violent felony offense and includes within its ambit attempted murder in the second degree. Subdivision (4) of that section provides that the minimum sentence to be imposed therefor “must be fixed by the court at one-third of the maximum term imposed” except in the instance where the conviction is for “a class B *armed*felony offense” (emphasis supplied). CPL 1.20 (41) (a) defines an armed felony as a violent felony, an element of which includes “possession * * * [of] a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious injury may be discharged” or displays what appears to be a firearm. Neither murder nor attempted murder in the second degree as defined in Penal Law § 125.25 requires the use of a firearm. Hence, it is not an “armed” felony and the imposition of a minimum sentence in excess of one third the maximum was improper *(People v Lawrence,*97 AD2d 718, *appeal on other grounds affd*64 NY2d 200).

Accordingly, we modify to vacate the sentence on the count of attempted murder in the second degree and remand the matter to the trial court for resentence on that count. We have exam*10ined the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom and Milonas, JJ.