alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit (10)(n)
 Amendment
 Officers Incentive  Compensation Plan
(Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2008)
 Whereas,
 Whereas,
 Whereas,
 Whereas,
 Now Therefore,
 (s)
    
    Separation from Service means an Employee retires or otherwise has
a separation from service from the Company as defined under Code Section 409A and
any applicable regulations. The Plan Administrator will determine, consistent with
the requirements of Code Section 409A and any applicable regulations, to what
extent a person on a leave of absence, including on paid sick leave pursuant to
Company policy, has incurred a Separation from Service. Notwithstanding the above,
a Separation from Service will occur consistent with the requirements of Code
Section 409A when it is reasonably anticipated that the future level of bona fide
services provided by the Employee (whether as an employee or as an independent
contractor) will be no more than 45% of the average level of bona fide services
performed by the Employee (whether as an employee or as an independent contractor)
over the immediately preceding 36 month period (or the full period of services, if
less than 36 months).
 1




---



##### 



Signed this 21 day of December, 2008.CMS Energy Corporation:/s/ John M. Butler

John M. ButlerSenior Vice President  Human Resources and Administrative ServicesAttest:/s/ Catherine M. ReynoldsCatherine M. ReynoldsVice President and Secretary
 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18595]

[[Page 41674]]

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

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, 
September 11, 2017 at 1:45 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Umstead 
Hotel in Cary, North Carolina. The purpose of this meeting is to 
consider grant applications for the 4th quarter of FY 2017, and other 
business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.

ADDRESSES: Umstead Hotel, 100 Woodland Pond Drive, Cary, NC 27513.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Mattiello, Executive 
Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, 
Reston, VA 20190, 571-313-8843, [email protected].

Jonathan D. Mattiello,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2017-18595 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P
```
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of The Finish Line, Inc. (the
Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the thirteen and thirty-nine weeks ended December 1, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78); and
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: January 9, 2008



|                        |  |                  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Alan H. Cohen
|Alan H. Cohen          
|Chairman and           
|Chief Executive Officer



|                                          |  |                     
|----------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|                                          | 
|By:                                       |  | /s/ Kevin S. Wampler
|Kevin S. Wampler                         
|Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial
|Officer and Assistant Secretary          

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The
Finish Line, Inc. and will be retained by The Finish Line, Inc. and forwarded to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 10098]


Proposal To Extend Cultural Property Agreement between the United 
States and Cambodia

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Proposal of an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of 
Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Cambodia from the 
Bronze Age through the Khmer Era.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Foster, Cultural Heritage 
Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: 202-632-6301; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c1f29300c2e332c1c2f283d2839723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b784e576b49544b7b484f5a4f5e155c544d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), the 
Department proposes an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding 
with the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia. A copy of the 
Memorandum of Understanding, the Designated List of categories of 
material restricted from import into the United States, and related 
information can be found at the Cultural Heritage Center Web site: 
http://culturalheritage.state.gov.

D. Bruce Wharton,
Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-18280 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### IRVIN INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 85-0206.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

July 8, 1985.

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, District Judge.

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Stipulation of Dismissal executed by the parties and approved by the Court on May 9, 1985, and the entire record herein, and the Court being fully advised of the premises, it is by the Court, this 8 day of July, 1985,

ORDERED that the Court’s April 3, 1985 Memorandum Order, 608 F.Supp. 907 (D.C. D.C.), denying defendants’ motion to dismiss be, and the same hereby is vacated.
#### The Saratoga, etc.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

February 27, 1883.)

1. Penalty—Proceedings to Recover—Violation of Revenue Law.

. Whenever a vessel, or-the owner or master of a vessel, has become subject to a penalty for a violation of the revenue laws of the United States, such vessel shall be holden for the payment of such penalty, and may be seized and proceeded against summarily by libel to recover such penalty.

Section 3088, Rev. St.

2. Same—When Vessel not Subject to Seizure.

The act of congress of February 8,1881, provides that no vessel shall be subject to seizure or forfeiture as above by reason of the penalty incurred under section 2873, Rev. St., unless it shall appear that the master, at the time of the alleged illegal act, was a consenting party or privy thereto.

*Stewart L.*Woodford, U. S. Atty., for appellant.

*Goodrich, Deady é Platt,*for claimants and appellees.

*383Wallace, J.

Upon the appeal to this court from the district court, the libel to which the claimants’ exceptions were sustained in the court below has been amended so that it affirmatively concedes that the libeled vessel “was used by the owners thereof as a common carrier in the transaction of their business as such carrier, and that neither the owner nor the master was a consenting party or privy to the illegal act for which the penalty was incurred.” This amendment relieves the case from any mere technical question, and the right to seize the vessel and proceed against it summarily by libel under section 3088, Eev. St., to recover a penalty incurred under section 2873, although it was a vessel used as a common carrier, and neither the owner nor master was a consenting party or privy to the act for which the penalty was incurred, is the broad question presented by the claimants? exceptions. The act of congress of February 8, 1881, declares explicitly that a vessel so used shall not be subject to seizure or forfeiture by force of the provisions of title *8é*of the Eevised Statutes, unless it shall appear that the owner or master, at the time of the alleged illegal act, was a consenting party or privy thereto; and section 2873 is one of the provisions of that title.

Fully concurring in the conclusion reached by the district judge, and deeming that nothing can be added to the convincing exposition which this act has received in the opinion delivered by him, his decision is adopted, and the exceptions are sustained by this court.
Unassociated Document














Exhibit 10.1


 


EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (“AMENDMENT”), is made and entered into by and between Sharps Compliance Corp., having its principle office at 9220 Kirby Drive, Suite 500, Houston, TX 77054 (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), and David P. Tusa (hereinafter referred to as the “Executive”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


For and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree to amend the Executive’s original executed employment agreement, dated July 14, 2003 and amended on, (i) October 1, 2004 (effective June 21, 2004), (ii) August 19, 2005 and (iii) June 14, 2010, herein defined as the “Agreement”, as follows:


 


Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Severance Period referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Agreement is hereby changed to eighteen (18) months.


 


IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first written below with the amended provisions noted above being effective November 17, 2011.


 







 


EXECUTIVE:


 


____________________


Executive


 


Date:           December 2, 2011


 







 


COMPANY:


 


By:           ____________________


Name:           Diana P. Diaz


 


Title:           Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


 


Date:           December 2, 2011
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6244** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. COVEN EARL GABRIEL

- VICK , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eas tern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr - 00157

- BO

- 1 ; 5:10

- cv - 00570

- BO )

Submitted : June 2, 2011 Decided: June 9, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per c uriam opinion
.
Coven Earl Gabriel

- Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Coven Earl Gabri el

- Vick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A c ertificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating tha t reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies r elief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently re viewed the record and conclude that Gabriel

- Vick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
(logo)C-III | C-III Asset Management

 

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

**C-III Asset Management LLC**

 

 

Theundersigned, Barry davis, President of C-III Asset Management LLC (*f/k/aCenterline Servicing LLC*), the Special Servicer under that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013, relating to the **J.P. MorganChase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2013-LC11, Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-LC11** (the “Pooling and ServicingAgreement”), hereby certifies as follows:

 

1.       areview of the activities of the Special Servicer and of its performance underthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the calendar year 2017 (the“Reporting Period”) has been made under the undersigned’s supervision;

 

2.       tothe best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the SpecialServicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

Capitalizedterms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in thePooling and Servicing Agreement.

 

 

**INWITNESS WHEREOF**,as of the 1st day of March, 2018, I have hereunto signed my name.

 

 

 

/s/Barry Davis

**BarryDavis**,President

C-IIIAsset Management LLC, a 

Delawarelimited liability company

 

 

JPM2013-LC11
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2023_12_1_15_1" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 6. U.S. business response to the COVID-19 pandemic changes, in pay, in percent, 2021</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Pandemic impact on pay</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Total</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Healthcare and social assistance<br />(NAICS 62)</th>
<th style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" scope="col">Child daycare centers<br />(NAICS 6244)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Increased base wages (straight-time wages or salary)</p>
</th>
<td>14.5</td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>19.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Paid one-time special monetary awards or appreciation bonuses for working during the pandemic</p>
</th>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>17.0</td>
<td>17.6</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2023_12_1_15_1_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="4">
<p>Note: NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.</p>
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6497

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AFNAN JEROME PARKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 96-7162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AFNAN JEROME PARKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (CR-91-15-C)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996
2

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Afnan Jerome Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Urban Baer, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

In appeal No. 96-6497, Appellant appeals from the district

court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

35. In appeal No. 96-7162, Appellant appeals from the district

court's orders denying his motions for a downward departure and to

modify his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Parker, Nos. CR-91-15-C; CR-91-15 (W.D. Va. Feb. 23, and June 26,

1996). 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
3
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 974 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit employment 

of children in tobacco-related agriculture by deeming such employment 

as oppressive child labor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. REED, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit 

employment of children in tobacco-related agriculture by 

deeming such employment as oppressive child labor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TOBACCO-RELATED AGRICULTURE EMPLOY4 MENT OF CHILDREN. 

5 Section 3(l) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 

6 (29 U.S.C. 203(l)) is amended— 

7 (1) in the first sentence— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘in any occupation, or (2)’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘in any occupation, (2)’’; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 974 IS

1 (B) by inserting before the semicolon the 

2 following: ‘‘, or (3) any employee under the age 

3 of eighteen years that has direct contact with 

4 tobacco plants or dried tobacco leaves’’; and 

5 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘other 

6 than manufacturing and mining’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

7 other than manufacturing, mining, and tobacco-re8 lated agriculture as described in paragraph (3) of 

9 the first sentence of this subsection,’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21


                                   SUBSIDIARIES
                                   ------------



                                     Jurisdiction of   Percentage Owned
Subsidiaries                          Incorporation      By Registrant
------------                          -------------      -------------

DCA Medical Services, Inc.                Florida              100%
Dialysis Medical, Inc.*                   Florida               80%
Dialysis Services of Florida, Inc.-
 Fort Walton Beach*                       Florida               80%
Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc.-
 Manahawkin                               New Jersey           100%
Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc. -
 Toms River*                              New Jersey           100%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
 Carlisle                                 Pennsylvania         100%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
 Chambersburg*                            Pennsylvania         100%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
 Lemoyne                                  Pennsylvania         100%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
 Wellsboro                                Pennsylvania         100%
Renal Services of Pa., Inc.               Pennsylvania         100%

* presently inactive.
#### AMATO v. BARBER STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., and Wilh. Wilhelmson.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 3, 1962.

Max D. Krongold, New York City, Harvey M. Jasper, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, Thomas F. Molanphy, New York City, of counsel, for defendants.

COOPER, District Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants have moved to vacate plaintiff’s notice to take the deposition of defendants by “an agent, employee or servant having knowledge” of an accident alleged to have occurred aboard their vessel.

This form of notice to take defendants’ deposition is defective on several grounds. First, it fails to comply with Rule 30(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S. *70C.A., which provides that where the name of the person to be examined is not known, the notice shall give “a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to which he belongs.” This court has consistently held that notices couched in terms similar to those employed in the instant case are insufficient under Rule 30(a). See, e. g., Williams v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 19 F.R.D. 285 (S.D.N.Y., 1956); Mattingly v. Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co., 12 F.R.D. 266 (S.D.N.Y., 1952) ; Cohen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 30 F.Supp. 419, 420 (S.D.N.Y., 1939).

Secondly, the notice is defective for the reason that it seeks to examine defendants through “an agent, employee or servant,” whereas the law is settled that a corporation may be examined as a party only through its officers, directors or managing agents. Krauss v. Erie R. Co., 16 F.R.D. 126 (S.D.N.Y., 1952); Aston v. American Export Lines, 11 F.R.D. 442 (S.D.N.Y., 1951); 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition, 1051. Thus, Rule 37(d), which specifies the sanctions that may be imposed upon a party who fails to appear for an examination, expressly refers to “a party or an officer or managing agent of a party” and does not refer to a mere “agent, employee or servant.”

Federal discovery procedures, of course, afford plaintiff ample means of ascertaining the name of employees having knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances. He may then examine such parties as witnesses, subject to the Rules. Morrison Export Co., Ltd. v. Goldstone et al. 12 F.R.D. 258 (S.D.N.Y., 1952). However, it is apparent that plaintiff may not examine defendants by means of the present notice.

Accordingly, this motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice to take defendants’ deposition is granted.

So ordered
Exhibit 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3
(Nos. 333-80747 and 333-87586), Form S-4 (No. 333-102123), and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-81197, 333-90780, 333-63624, and 333-25531) of Chittenden Corporation of our report dated February 18, 2005 relating to the financial statements, managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.







LOGO

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Montpelier, VT

February 18, 2005