alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
 Eastern Regional Research Center: Wyndmoor, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About ERRC
                        Greetings from the Director
                                    Directions/Lodging
                                    History and Accomplishments
                    Our Work
                        Biomass Pyrolysis Research
                                    IPMP 2013
                                    IPMP Dynamic Prediction
                                    IPMP Global Fit
                                    Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP)
                                    Predictive Microbiology Information Portal (PMIP)
                                    PoultryFARMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania Eastern Regional Research Center Docs Engineering SUPER Support Group







Biodiesel Production Modelsheadline bar The production of biodiesel from various feedstocks and their associated costs have been modeled by ARS engineers. These models are based on data from producers of biodiesel, technology suppliers and other sources with expertise in  the biodiesel industry.


Return to top


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
ex101form8k.htm






Exhibit 10.1


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







 







This FIRST AMENDMENT ("Amendment") to the Employment Agreement (the  "Employment Agreement") made and entered into effective as of October 28, 2013 by and between CITIZENS COMMUNITY FEDERAL and CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC. (collectively, the "Bank") and EDWARD H. SCHAEFER (the "Employee"), is entered into effective as of March 3, 2015 by each of the foregoing parties to the Employment Agreement. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this First Amendment will have the meanings given to them in the Employment Agreement.


 


In consideration of the mutual promises set forth in the Employment Agreement and below, the undersigned agree to amend the provisions of the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


1.  Effective Time. Section 6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:







"6.   Term. The Bank hereby employs the Employee, and the Employee hereby accepts such employment under this Agreement, for the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on December 31, 2016 (or such earlier date as is determined in accordance with section 10)."







   2.  No Other Changes.    All other terms, conditions, covenants, obligations and agreements in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and without any change due to this First Amendment. To the extent this First Amendment is inconsistent with the Employment Agreement, this First Amendment shall govern and control.


 







[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature pages follow]








	  






	  







  





  











  













 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to the Employment Agreement to be executed effective as of the day, month and year first above written.


 







CITIZENS COMMUNITY FEDERAL







By: _/s/ Richard McHugh___________


Richard McHugh, Chairman







CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.







By: __/s/ Richard McHugh_________


Richard McHugh, Chairman












EMPLOYEE:












__/s/ Edward H. Schaefer__________


Edward H. Schaefer







 














2
**Exhibit 3.(a)(ii)**

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

TO

CERTIFICATE OFINCORPORATION

OF

J. L. HALSEYCORPORATION

(INCORPORATEDJANUARY 14, 2002)

(PURSUANT TO SECTION 242OF THE GENERAL CORPORATION

LAW OF THE STATEOF DELAWARE)

J. L. HalseyCorporation, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of theGeneral Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), herebycertifies:

FIRST, that the board ofdirectors of the Corporation duly adopted resolutions proposing and declaringadvisable the following amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation inaccordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law ofthe State of Delaware:

“RESOLVED, thatthe Board of Directors of the Corporation deems and declares it appropriate andadvisable an amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporationto amend paragraph (A)(2) of Article SIXTH to read as follows:

(2) Prohibited Transfers. From and after the effectivetime of the Merger, no Person shall Transfer any Stock to any other Person tothe extent that such Transfer, if effected: (a) would cause the Transferee orany Person or Public Group to have a Prohibited Ownership Percentage; (b) wouldincrease the Stock ownership percentage (determined in accordance with Section382 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder) of any Transferee orany Person or Public Group having a Prohibited Ownership Percentage; or (c)would create, under Treasury Regulation Section 1.382-2T(j)(3)(i), a new PublicGroup; provided, however, that none of the following shall be considered aProhibited Transfer for purposes of this Article Fifth: (i) the conversion intoStock of all or any portion of the outstanding amount, including any and allprincipal and accrued interest, of that certain 10% convertible subordinatednote, dated as of September 27, 2000, issued by the Corporation to thepresident of the Corporation as payee thereunder, (ii) the exercise by John H.Foster of his options to acquire an aggregate of 2,200,000 shares of NAHC, Inc.common stock, which option shall have been assumed by the Corporation pursuantto the Merger, or (iii) the acquisition of Common Stock pursuant to the Mergerby LDN Stuyvie Partnership.

SECOND, in lieu ofa meeting and vote of the sole stockholder, the sole stockholder has givenwritten consent to said amendment in accordance with the provisions of Section228(a) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

THIRD, that thepreviously stated amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of theCorporation was duly adopted by the sole stockholder of the Corporation inaccordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law ofthe State of Delaware.

[SIGNATURE PAGEFOLLOWS]

----

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate this 1st day ofFebruary, 2002.
|   | J. L. HALSEY CORPORATION             |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |
|   | By: /s/ David R.  Burt               |
|   | David R. Burt                        |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer, President, |
|   | Secretary and  Treasurer             |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 13, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-21178

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CEDRICK RODGERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-2105

USDC No. H-99-CR-737-2

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Chris Iles, court-appointed counsel for Cedrick

Rodgers, has filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting

that Rodgers’s appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See

Dinkins v. Alabama, 526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th Cir. 1976). Rodgers
2

has filed a response to counsel’s motion, arguing that his appeal

raises nonfrivolous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Our independent review of counsel’s Anders brief,

Rodgers’s response and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue

for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The request for

a COA, requested implicitly by the notice of appeal, is DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0653 IN THE MATTER OF: P.K., Respondent and Appellant
. ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 15 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

April 8 2020

04/08/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0653
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2371 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on bitolylene diisocyanate 

(TODI). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2005 

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on bitolylene 

diisocyanate (TODI). 

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

3 SECTION 1. BITOLYLENE DIISOCYANATE (TODI). 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.01 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 bitolylene diisocyanate (TODI)) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2010’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2371 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.23







COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENT OF EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN AND INTERIM CEO







Beginning on March 25, 2014, Jim Stephens, Chairman of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Support.com, Inc. (the “Company”) began serving as Executive Chairman and Interim CEO until a successor to the Company’s former CEO, Josh Pickus, was found and joined the Company.







As previously disclosed in the Company’s current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 14, 2014, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors met on March 10, 2014 (excluding Mr. Stephens who was not present and did not take part in the deliberations) and approved the following compensation for Mr. Stephens, in addition to existing compensation as a director, in relation to and for the duration of his full-time service as Executive Chairman and Interim CEO commencing March 25, 2014: (i) a monthly cash retainer of $30,000, pro-rated for any partial calendar months at the beginning and end of his service in this position; and (ii) grants of vested restricted stock units as permitted by the Company’s 2010 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan and to be confirmed each month by the Committee during Mr. Stephens’ service as Executive Chairman and Interim CEO, to be made on the last trading day of each calendar month commencing April 30, 2014, with the number of shares issued to be calculated based on dividing $45,000 per month (pro-rata for any partial calendar month) by the fair market value of a share of Company common stock on the date of grant.
#### Eugene J. ST. MARIE and Margaret St. Marie, wife of Eugene J. St. Marie v. SOUTHLAND MOBILE HOMES, INC.

Civ. A. No. 73-1541.

United States District Court, E. D. Louisiana.

April 25, 1974.

Russell & DeRussy, Patrick D. Breeden, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

Gordon Hackman, Boutte, La., for defendant.

Fred Clegg Strong, Harry E. Kuhner, II, Legier, McEnerny, Waguespack, Kuhner & Scoggin, New Orleans, La., for National American Bank.

MINUTE ENTRY

ALVIN B. RUBIN, District Judge.

After the Court entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs in this suit under the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U. S.C.A. § 1601 et seq., they moved for reconsideration of their motion. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to two statutory penalties since, as joint obligors in the transaction from which the suit arose, they both are persons to whom accurate disclosure was due under the Act.

There is some support for this position, although counsel have not suggested and the Court has not found any reported cases dealing with the issue. The statute itself provides, in § 130 (15 U.S.C.A. § 1640), “any creditor who fails in connection with any consumer credit transaction to disclose to any person any information required under this chapter to be disclosed to that person is liable to that person [for the statutory penalty].” In a recommendation which plaintiffs’ attorney appended to the motion for reconsideration, an Atlanta special master found in this language authority to impose two penalties in a case similar to this one.

On the other hand, the Act does make explicit provision — although not in the penalty section — for cases involving two obligors: if they are jointly liable, the creditor need furnish only one disclosure statement to one of the debtors. 15 U. S.C.A. § 1631(b); 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(e). Though the manner in which the Act requires disclosure is not conclusive in interpreting the penalty provisions, it is persuasive.

The Court concludes that the policy of the Act would best be served by impos*997ing only one penalty in cases of this kind. The plaintiffs here are husband and wife; they financed the purchase of a mobile home, and received the faulty disclosure statement, as a family unit rather than as two separate debtors. A different result might be reached if their interests conflicted, or if they were two individuals, each paying part of the purchase price and finance charge out of separate funds. But that is not the case here, and the motion to reconsider is accordingly denied.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2 02 2- 1462 LT Case No. 2 018

- CF

- 0899

_____________________________ V INCENT T ERRY , Appella nt,
v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee
.

_____________________________ 3.850 A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. Lisa D. Herndon, Judge. Vincent Terry, Crawfordville, pro se. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Talla hassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. June 2 8, 2 024
P ER C URIAM . We affirm the trial court’s order in all respects except for its summary denial of Appellant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective when he opened the door to firearms evidence that was the subject of an order in limine, which claim he brings to this Court as Issue Three, and which claim the trial court addressed as Ground One. We vacate and remand the trial court’s summary denial of that claim for attachment of a copy of that portion of the2 files and records in the case that conclusively shows Appellant is not entitled to relief as to the claim, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4), or, if there are no such files and records, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
. A FFIRMED IN P ART ; V ACATED IN P ART ; R EMANDED WITH I NSTRUCTIONS E ISNAUGLE , B OATWRIGHT , and P RATT , JJ., concur.

________ _____________________ Not fin al until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2191

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for full benefits 

for disabled widows and widowers without regard to age. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide 

for full benefits for disabled widows and widowers without regard to age.

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

3 SECTION 1. FULL BENEFITS FOR DISABLED WIDOWS AND 

4 WIDOWERS WITHOUT REGARD TO AGE. 

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR WIDOW’S INSURANCE BENE6 FITS.—Section 202(e) of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 402(e)) is amended—

8 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘has at9 tained age 50 but has not attained age 60 and’’; 
2

•HR 2191 IH 

1 (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘after at2 taining age 50 if she was entitled before such mar3 riage occurred’’ and inserting ‘‘after having been en4 titled’’; and 

5 (3) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘after at6 taining age 50’’. 

7 (b) ELIGIBILITY FOR WIDOWER’S INSURANCE BENE8 FITS.—Section 202(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)) is 

9 amended—

10 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ‘‘has at11 tained age 50 but has not attained age 60 and’’; 

12 (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘after at13 taining age 50 if he was entitled before such mar14 riage occurred’’ and inserting ‘‘after having been en15 titled’’; and 

16 (3) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘after at17 taining age 50’’. 

18 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS. 

19 Section 202(q) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

20 402(q)) is amended—

21 (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘age 50’’ 

22 and inserting ‘‘age 60’’; and 

23 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

24 paragraph: 
3

•HR 2191 IH 

1 ‘‘(12) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

2 section, there shall be no reduction under this subsection 

3 in the widow’s or widower’s insurance benefit of an indi4 vidual for any month in which such individual is under 

5 a disability (as defined in section 223(d)); and none of 

6 the provisions of this subsection shall apply with respect 

7 to such benefit even though such benefit may have been 

8 so reduced prior to the onset of such disability.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REDETERMINATION OF BEN10 EFITS. 

11 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

12 respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title 

13 II of the Social Security Act for months after the month 

14 in which this Act is enacted. The Commissioner of Social 

15 Security (without the necessity of any application there16 for) shall redetermine the amount of any widow’s or wid17 ower’s insurance benefit which is payable for the month 

18 in which this Act is enacted in order to reflect such 

19 amendments as provided in the preceding sentence.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7337

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLEVELAND NELSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-94-57)

Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cleveland Nelson appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on Nelson’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion for return

of property and denying his motion for reconsideration. See United

States v. Nelson, No. CR-94-57 (E.D.N.C. June 24, 2003; Aug. 18,

2003). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error

because Nelson had notice of the contested forfeiture no later than

April 1995, more than six years before he filed the Rule 41(e)

motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (2000); United States v. Minor,

228 F.3d 352, 359 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1447
BISHOP COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NORA L. HORNE, Surviving Spouse of David Horne; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-0460-BLA) Submitted: September 5, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas A. Smoot, William S. Mattingly, Kathy L. Snyder, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Howard M. Radzely, Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Christian P. Barber, Barry H. Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Joseph E. Wolfe, W. Andrew Delph, Jr., WOLFE, WILLIAMS & RUTHERFORD, Norton, Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bishop Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of survivor’s black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Bishop Coal Co. v. Horne , No. 04- 0460-BLA (B.R.B. Feb. 24, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
#### GARVEY, Respondent, v. OLDBURY ELEC-TRO-CHEMICAL CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 6, 1912.)

Action by Edward Garvey against the Oldbury Electro-Chemical Company. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See, also, 136 App. Div. 910, 120 N. Y. Supp. 1124.
#### PEOPLE v. STRAUSS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Ascher Strauss. No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed.
[No. 38727-8-I.

Division One.

September 22, 1997.]

#### Horst Simon, *Appellant,*v. Hyatt Legal Services, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 94-2-06576-7, Richard J. Thorpe, J., entered May 2, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Agid, J.