alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Teir I Change of Control Agreement



 Exhibit 10(i)(i). First Amendment to Tier I Change of Control Employment Agreement

  

	1.	The McDonald’s Corporation Tier I Change of Control Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), is hereby amended by adding at the end of Article 10 a new Section 10.16,
reading in its entirety as follows: 

  

	 	10.16	Company Subsidiaries and Successors. References in the Agreement to employment by “the Company” shall be deemed to include employment by (1) any entity in
which the Company directly or through intervening subsidiaries owns 100% of the total combined voting power or value of all classes of stock, or, in the case of an unincorporated entity, 100% interest in the capital and profits and (2) any successor
or assign of the Company pursuant to Section 10.02, and any obligation of the Company hereunder shall be deemed satisfied if and to the extent an entity described in clause (1) or (2) of this sentence performs such obligation.


  

	2.	This amendment is effective as of January 25, 2005. 

  

	3.	Except as specifically provided above, the Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed without amendment. 

  

 104    McDonald’s Corporation
Opinion issued November 16, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00797-CV

———————————

IN RE BLAS CORTEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 25, 2023, relator Blas Cortez filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

challenging (1) the associate judge’s August 26, 2022 order granting real party in 

interest’s motion for new trial and (2) the presiding judge’s September 16, 2022 

order denying relator’s motion for reconsideration of the new trial order.1 We deny 

the petition.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy.

1 The underlying case is Oscar Trevino v. Blas Cortez, cause number 18-DV-254103, 

pending in the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable 

O’Neil Williams presiding.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52047-52048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20899]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Meetings; Sunshine Act

Agency Holding the Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission.

Time and Date: September 11, 10 a.m.

Place: 800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, 
Washington, DC.

Status: A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the 
remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.

Matters To Be Considered: 

Open Session

    (1) FMC Agreement No. 201192, South Florida Container Terminal 
Cooperative Working Agreement.
    (2) Docket No. 02-04, Anchor Shipping Co. v. Alianca--Request for 
Extension of Time for Initial and Final Decision.
    (3) Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, 2008.

[[Page 52048]]

Closed Session

    (1) FMC Agreement No. 201170-001, LA Long Beach Port Infrastructure 
& Environmental Cooperative Working Agreement.
    (2) LA/Long Beach Ports/Terminals Agreements.
    (3) Export Cargo Issues Status Report.
    (4) Internal Administrative Practices and Personnel Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Karen V. Gregory, Assistant 
Secretary, (202) 523-5725.

Karen V. Gregory
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20899 Filed 9-4-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52899-52900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21051]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Notice of Availability of 
Report

    In compliance with section 13 of Public Law 92-463 (Federal 
Advisory Committee Act) notice is hereby given that the 2008 Annual 
Report of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Advisory Committee on 
Women Veterans has been issued. The report summarizes activities and 
recommendations of the Committee on matters relative to VA programs and 
policies affecting women veterans. It is available for public 
inspection at two locations:

Mr. Richard Yarnall, Federal Advisory Committee Desk, Library of 
Congress, Anglo-American Acquisition Division, Government Documents 
Section, Room LM-B42, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 
20540-4172; and
Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Women Veterans, Suite 438 
(00W), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.

    Dated: September 3, 2008.


[[Page 52900]]


    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-21051 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Exhibit 32


Allegiant Travel Company Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act - filed as an exhibit to 10-K/A for Year Ended December 31, 2015





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 of Allegiant Travel Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016 (the “Report”), the undersigned, Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Scott Sheldon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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.





/s/ Maurice J. Gallagher, Jr./s/ Scott SheldonMaurice J. Gallagher, Jr.Scott SheldonPrincipal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial OfficerApril 29, 2016April 29, 2016





The foregoing Certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this report into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts.
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 71

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 25, 2001

Received

OCTOBER 31, 2001

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Amending title 36, United States Code, to designate

September 11 as Patriot Day.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of

the World Trade Center in New York City, and a third

into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;
2

HJ 71 RFS

Whereas the fourth hijacked aircraft crashed in southwestern

Pennsylvania after passengers tried to take control of the

aircraft in order to prevent the hijackers from crashing

the aircraft into an important symbol of democracy and

freedom;

Whereas these attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched against the United States, killing

thousands of innocent people; and

Whereas in the aftermath of the attacks the people of the

United States stood united in providing support for those

in need: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SEPTEMBER 11 AS PATRIOT

4 DAY.

5 Chapter 1 of title 36, United States Code, is amended

6 by adding at the end the following new section:

7 ‘‘§ 144. Patriot Day

8 ‘‘(a) DESIGNATION.—September 11 is Patriot Day.

9 ‘‘(b) PROCLAMATION.—The President is requested to

10 issue each year a proclamation calling on—

11 ‘‘(1) State and local governments and the peo12 ple of the United States to observe Patriot Day with

13 appropriate programs and activities;

14 ‘‘(2) all departments, agencies, and instrumen15 talities of the United States and interested organiza16 tions and individuals to display the flag of the
3

HJ 71 RFS

1 United States at halfstaff on Patriot Day in honor

2 of the individuals who lost their lives as a result of

3 the terrorist attacks against the United States that

4 occurred on September 11, 2001; and

5 ‘‘(3) the people of the United States to observe

6 a moment of silence on Patriot Day in honor of the

7 individuals who lost their lives as a result of the ter8 rorist attacks against the United States that oc9 curred on September 11, 2001.’’.

10 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

11 The table of contents for chapter 1 of title 36, United

12 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol13 lowing new item:

‘‘144. Patriot Day.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 25,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
#### KENTUCKY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. INTERSTATE SECURITIES COMPANY #2 and Carl J. Powers, Individually, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 30, 1972.

Henry H. Harned, Director, Leslie Whit-mer, Asst. Director, Ky. State Bar Assn., Frankfort, for complainant.

PER CURIAM.

During our consideration of the question decided in Kentucky State Bar Association v. Tussey, Ky., 476 S.W.2d 177 (1972), the respondent Carl J. Powers engaged in the unlawful practice of law by preparing two mortgages for his employer, the respondent Interstate Securities Company #2.

Upon motion of the Kentucky State Bar Association a rule was issued pursuant to RCA 3.460 against both respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. The response admits the unlawful practice but urges in mitigation that the act complained of occurred at a time before respondents had knowledge of the Tussey decision.

We think the matter follows Tussey so closely in point of time as to warrant absolution of contempt. Accordingly the respondents are not held in contempt but each of them is permanently enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and the costs of this action are assessed against them.

All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          96,167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,235,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                   419,000
<INVENTORY>                                 11,893,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,266,286
<PP&E>                                      81,118,134
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,991,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,807,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,829,982
<BONDS>                                     46,690,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,047
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,216,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,807,509
<SALES>                                     37,314,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,558,311
<CGS>                                       29,648,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,109,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,182,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (733,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   293,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (440,128)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (440,128)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers of Cleartronic, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, to each respective officers knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods indicated.



|                 |  |     |  |                            
|---------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|                 |  |     |  |                            
|                 |  |     |  |                            
|January 13, 2014 |  |     |  | /s/ Larry Reid             
|                 |  | By: |  | Larry Reid                 
|                 |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11200 Conference Calendar

RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SAM PRATT, Warden; P. CHILDS, Jail Administrator, Federal Detention Center, Seagoville; NFN ANDERSON, Unit Manager, FCI, Seagoville; D. CROWE, Unit Five Case Manager, FCI, Seagoville; NFN PRICE, Unit Five Counselor, FCI, Seagoville; NFN FARLEY, Special Investigation Services Agent, FCI, Seagoville; WILLIAM MOBLEY, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, BOP, South Central Regional Office, Dallas, TX, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CV-210-L

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rodolfo Rodriguez, former federal prisoner # 47735-079, appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for seeking monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).No. 01-11200 -2- Rodriguez has failed to brief the relevant issue, as he has provided neither argument nor authorities to show that the district court erred in dismissing his suit. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) “prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if he has had three actions or appeals dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim.” Carson v. Johnson , 112 F.3d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1997)(citing Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996)). The district court’s dismissal of Rodriguez’ complaint as frivolous and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous both count as “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba , 103 F.3d at 388. Rodriguez is warned that if he accumulates a third “strike,” he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Rodriguez has also moved this court for appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. That motion is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED;
SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
#### DELAUGHTER et al. v. BOGALUSA DAIRY FARMERS LOCAL *NO.*278.

No. 3376.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 29, 1951.

*283Talley & Anthony, Bogalusa, for appellants.

Hirsch, Greene & Barker, Baton Rouge, Ott & Watts, Franklinton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment denying them a writ of injunction. The defendants filed a motion in this court seeking to have the appeal dismissed, on the ground that the question had become moot, annexing to their said motion affidavits to the effect that since the rendition of the judgment by the lower court the picket lines have been withdrawn from in front of plaintiffs’ place of business and that plaintiffs’ dairy has been removed from the "unfair list”, the gist of plaintiffs’ ■complaints to obtain the writ of injunction. After stating the pleadings in the case and the result of the trial, we remanded the case for the purpose of receiving evidence as to the correctness of the grounds set out in the motion, see La.App., 52 So.2d 319, and the matter is now ¡before us pursuant thereto.

Without going into an extended detail of the evidence submitted on the remand, suffice it to say that this evidence clearly shows that the picket lines established by the defendant, immediately after rendition of the judgment denying the writ of injunction, were withdrawn and likewise plaintiffs’ dairy has been removed from the “unfair list”, if one was in existence. The gist of plaintiffs’ demand was to obtain a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant local from picketing the place of business of plaintiffs and to remove plaintiffs’ dairy from the “unfair list”. Defendant having voluntarily removed the picket lines and stopped the picketing of plaintiffs’ place of business and having shown that there is not an “unfair list” or that plaintiffs’ dairy is not on any unfair list, it is obvious that the acts which they sought to prevent by the injunction have been voluntarily performed by the defendant, hence there is nothing before this court.

The motion to dismiss is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.
181 La. 70

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. FORD.

No. 33130.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 1935.

Richard A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

E. M. Robbert, City Atty., and W. Sommer Benedict, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

The defendant was charged with distributing circulars, without a permit, in violation of Ordinance No. S080, C. C. S., of the city of New Orleans.

Section 1 of the ordinance specifies the offenses denounced by it, and section 2 thereof provides that upon each conviction the offending person shall be fined not exceeding $25, or imprisoned not exceeding 30 days, or both, in the discretion of the court. In this ease the accused was found guilty as charged, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $5, or to serve 30 days in jail. After conviction and sentence of the accused, his counsel filed the following demurrer:

“Now into Court, aided and assisted by his attorney, Richard A. Dowling, comes-who having previously withdrawn his plea of not guilty, now says to the Court.

“First. That he should not be compelled to plead or answer or stand trial in the above numbered and entitled cause for the reason that Ordinance No. 8080 Commission Council Series of New Orleans, is illegal, null and void and in contravention of the Constitution of Louisiana, Art. 1, and of the United States Amendment 14, in that it deprives persons of *625liberty without legal justification and without due process of law.

“Second. The enforcement of the ordinance is not uniform. The newspapers are allowed to distribute at will their papers. Majority Parties are likewise allowed to do so. Minority Parties are the only ones prosecuted for the violation of this Ordinance.

“Third. That your respondent makes the Ordinance a part of the answer herein the same as if written herein in full.

“Fourth. That the circular distributed herein was distributed from hand to hand and not in violation of the said ordinance; and further that said circular contained no advertising matter whatever, but was a circular involving a strike of Seamen and a conference of the Seamen’s Union and did not come within the purview of the said Ordinance No. 8080.”

The recorder and stenographer of the court both certify, in part, as follows:

“I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of the transcript, * * * except that the demuiTer herein filed was filed after the trial and conviction and was not argued or presented to this court for consideration.”

The demui-rer was not filed in time and was not passed upon by the recorder; hence this is not a case whei’e the constitutionality or legality of a municipal ordinance imposing a fine or penalty is in contest.

The appeal is dismissed.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

June 2, 2010 

ERRATA 

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2010-M920 

IN RE DEUTSCHE BANK, MISC. NO. 920 

Decided: May 27, 2010 

Precedential Order 

______________________ 

Please make the following change: 

Page 6 line 2, change “Hrick” to --Hricik--.
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, DC 20549








FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934








Date of Report (date of earliest event reported):  May 7, 2012





Frontier Communications Corporation


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware


(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)





001-11001
06-0619596(Commission File Number)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, Connecticut
06905(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)





(203) 614-5600


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





_________________


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (seeGeneral Instruction A.2. below):





o    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





o    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





o
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





o
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR240.13e-4(c))





Item 8.01
Other Events





The information set forth in the press release issued by Frontier Communications Corporation on May 7, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, is incorporated herein by reference.




Item 9.01
Financial Statements and Exhibits




(d)           Exhibits




99.1
Press Release of Frontier Communications Corporation released on May 7, 2012.












SIGNATURES







Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.










FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATIONDate:  May 7, 2012
By:/s/ Susana D’EmicSusana D’EmicSenior Vice President and Controller