alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Amendment, dated May 2,2007 to Fiscal Year 2007 Executive Incentive Plan


 Exhibit 10.1 
 [CryoLife Letterhead] 
 May     , 2007 
 BY HAND DELIVERY 
 _____________

 CryoLife, Inc. 
 1655 Roberts
Blvd., NW 
 Kennesaw, GA 30144 
 Dear                     : 
 On May 2, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of CryoLife, Inc. approved an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Executive Incentive Plan Bonus Agreement dated February 14, 2007
(“2007 Grant Agreement”) between you and CryoLife, under the 2007 Executive Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). The amendment provides for the exclusion of the $686,000 charge related to executive severance expense incurred by CryoLife
in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 from the computation of the 2007 adjusted net income target on which a portion of the 2007 bonus is based. As a result of the amendment, this executive severance charge will be disregarded for purposes of
determining whether adjusted net income targets for 2007 under the Plan have been met. 
 Accordingly, the definition of
“Adjusted Net Income” on Exhibit 2 of your 2007 Grant Agreement has been amended to read as follows: 
  

	 *
	 Adjusted Net Income is GAAP net income for 2007, exclusive of interest expense, interest income, $686,000 of executive severance expense incurred in the first
quarter of fiscal 2007, changes in the value of the derivative related to the Company’s preferred stock, stock compensation expense (other than stock compensation expense related to the bonus plan), other income and expense, and amortization
associated with intangibles recorded pursuant to the Exchange and Service Agreement dated December 15, 2006 with Regeneration Technologies, Inc., if any. 


 All other provisions of your 2007 Grant Agreement remain unchanged. If you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do hesitate to contact me or Suzanne Gabbert. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 CRYOLIFE, INC.

	
	  
	 Steven. G. Anderson



  
 EXECUTIVE 

Acknowledge and Received:
### §15703. Counties eligible for assistance in more than one region

(a) Limitation.—A political subdivision of a State may not receive assistance under this subtitle in a fiscal year from more than one Commission.

(b) Selection of Commission.—A political subdivision included in the region of more than one Commission shall select the Commission with which it will participate by notifying, in writing, the Federal Cochairperson and the appropriate State member of that Commission.

(c) Changes in Selections.—The selection of a Commission by a political subdivision shall apply in the fiscal year in which the selection is made, and shall apply in each subsequent fiscal year unless the political subdivision, at least 90 days before the first day of the fiscal year, notifies the Cochairpersons of another Commission in writing that the political subdivision will participate in that Commission and also transmits a copy of such notification to the Cochairpersons of the Commission in which the political subdivision is currently participating.

(d) Inclusion of Appalachian Regional Commission.—In this section, the term "Commission" includes the Appalachian Regional Commission established under chapter 143.

(Added Pub. L. 110–234, title XIV, §14217(a)(2), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1480, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title XIV, §14217(a)(2), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2242.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the first fiscal year beginning after June 18, 2008, see section 14217(d) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 15101 of this title.
FROM THE U.S. OMBUDSMAN

----

**July 1998**
The oil and gas resources of the Caspian region are of very great economic importance to the United States.  U.S.companies plan to invest billions of dollars in the region, which of course could bring great benefit to all Americansthrough reliable energy access at reasonable prices.  As a result, a major component of my work as NISOmbudsman is to promote our commercial as well as our broader interests in the Caspian Basin.
Goals
CERTIFICATION
                         OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                   AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Annual Report On Form 10-KSB of Segway III
Corp., for the year ended December 31, 2003, I, Richard I. Anslow, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Segway III Corp. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
          2003, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
          year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Segway
          III Corp.

SEGWAY III CORP.


/s/ Richard I. Anslow
--------------------------------
Richard I. Anslow
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer

Dated: April 14, 2004
99–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–353

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 3338, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT,

2002

DECEMBER 20 (legislative day, DECEMBER 19), 2001.—Referred to the House

Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H. Res. 324]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 324, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference

report to accompany H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002, and against its consideration. The resolution

further provides that the conference report shall be considered as

read.

Æ
1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2666

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * James L. Manzer; Beverly J. Manzer, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: November 28, 2003 Filed: January 16, 2004

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James and Beverly Manzer appeal the District Court’s 1 order approving an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) levy upon the Manzers’ principal residence. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we affirm. In January 2003 the government petitioned the District Court for approval of a proposed IRS levy upon the Manzers’ principal residence, as required by 26 U.S.C.-2- § 6334(e)(1), because the Manzers were indebted to the United States for $37,770.02 in unpaid income taxes, unemployment taxes, penalties, and interest. Following a hearing, the District Court approved the levy, and the government levied on the Manzers’ residence and sold the property to a third party in July 2003. Initially, we conclude that the sale did not moot this appeal, because the 180- day redemption period has not yet run. See26 U.S.C. § 6337(b)(1). Upon de novo review, we also find that the District Court correctly approved the IRS levy. The Manzers had the burden of proving that the IRS assessments were incorrect, that the tax liabilities were not owed, or that there were other means of collecting those liabilities, cf. Page v. Comm’r , 823 F.2d 1263, 1272 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1043 (1988), and having received adequate procedural due process, see Post v. Harper , 980 F.2d 491, 493 (8th Cir. 1992), they failed to make such a showing. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### § 9.0 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to establish procedures relating to the Department's voluntary labeling program for household appliances and equipment to promote and effect energy conservation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AILEEN MARIANO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LIBERTY DIALYSIS-HAWAII, LLC,

DBA Liberty Dialysis,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-15452

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00652-LEK-BMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 8, 2014** 

University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Aileen Mariano appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of

Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii on claims of sexual harassment, negligent and intentional

FILED

OCT 29 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages, all arising under Hawaii

law. Mariano has not presented evidence to demonstrate Patient E’s actions were

severe or pervasive. See Nelson v. Univ. of Hawaii, 38 P.3d 95, 106 (Hawaii

2001). LDH can be held liable for its employees’ sexual harassment claims only

when it was or should have been aware of and failed to take adequate steps to end

the harassment. Arquero v. Hilton Hawaiian Village LLC, 91 P.3d 505, 514

(Hawaii 2004). Mariano only reported to LDH Patient E’s multiple touches of her

shoulder and arm, which was not severe or pervasive activity. LDH cannot be held

liable for this conduct because it responded promptly and thoroughly to Mariano’s

complaint.

Mariano’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is barred by

Hawaii’s workers’ compensation law, H.R.S. § 386-5, because it is not related to

the alleged sexual harassment.

Because the record indicates LDH’s conduct was not outrageous or beyond

the bounds of decency, we affirm summary judgment on Mariano’s claim for

intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Hac v. Univ. of Hawaii, 73 P.3d

46, 60-61 (Hawaii 2003).

Claims for punitive damages are derivative of other claims. Ross v. Stouffer

Hotel Co. (Hawai’i) Ltd., 879 P.2d 1037, 1049 (1994). Mariano has not presented

2
evidence to avoid summary judgment on any of her other claims. Therefore, her

punitive damages claim cannot succeed.

AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
                                                                    ------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       Ownership
Subsidiary                                                                             Percentage
----------                                                                             ----------
<S>                                                                                    <C>
Titan Exploration, Inc., (a Delaware Corporation)                                         100%
Pure Resources Holdings, Inc. (a Nevada corporation)                                      100%
Pure Resources I, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)                                           100%
Pure Resources, L.P. (a Texas limited partnership)                                        100%
PK I, L.P. (a Delaware limited partnership)                                               100%
PK II, L.P. (a Delaware limited partnership)                                              100%
PK III, L.P. (a Delaware limited partnership)                                             100%
PK IV, L.P. (a Delaware limited partnership)                                              100%
Pure Partners, L.P. (a Delaware limited partnership)                                       95%
Titan Offshore, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)                                             100%
OEDC, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)                                                       100%
PRS Offshore, L.P. (a Texas limited partnership)                                          100%
Carrollton Resources, L.L.C. (a Louisiana limited liability corporation)                  100%
Pure GP, LLC (a Delaware limited liability corporation)                                   100%
Pure Resources Holdings, LLC (a Nevada limited liability corporation)                     100%
HEP Pure, LP (a Delaware limited partnership) 100% HEP Pure                               100%
HEP Pure Acquisitions, LLC (a Delaware limited partnership)                               100%
HEC Petroleum Inc., (a Delaware corporation)                                              100%
HEP Partners, LP (a Delaware limited partnership)                                         100%
Hallwood Exploration Company Peru, LLC (a Delaware limited liability corporation)         100%
HEP San Juan, LLC (a Colorado limited liability corporation)                              100%
La Plata Associates, LLC (a Colorado limited liability corporation)                       100%
HEC La Plata, LLC (a Colorado limited liability corporation)                              100%
44 Canyon, LLC (a Colorado limited liability corporation                                  100%
Pure LaPice, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)                                                100%
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 67373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28159]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Parcel Return Service Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 20, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Parcel Return Service Contract 12 to Competitive 
Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. 
MC2019-63, CP2019-68.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-28159 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
§ 750.11 Shipping tolerances. Under some circumstances, you may use a license issued for the export of items from the United States to export more than the value shown on that license. This additional amount is called a shipping tolerance. This section tells you, as the licensee, when you may take advantage of a shipping tolerance and the amount of shipping tolerance you are permitted to use. ( a ) If you have already shipped the full quantity of items approved on your license, you may not use this shipping tolerance provision. No further shipment may be made under the license.
( b ) If you have not shipped the full quantity of items approved on the license, the value of all of your shipments under one license, up to the full quantity approved on the license, may exceed the total dollar value stated on that license by up to 10%, unless; ( 1 ) Your license stipulates a specific shipping tolerance; or
( 2 ) Your item is controlled for short supply reasons and a different tolerance has been established. (See part 754 of the EAR).
[78 FR 61902, Oct. 4, 2013]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Cyber Security Industry Alliance, Inc. (“CSIA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Cyber Security Industry Alliance, Inc., Wakefield, MA. The nature and scope of CSIA's standards development activities are: To promote the continuous enhancement of cyber security through public policy, education and technology-focused initiatives; (2) to promote such initiatives across the cyber security industry and on a global basis; (3) to promote and encourage the adoption of strong, effective technology standards relating to the cyber security industry through the foregoing initiatives and public education; and (4) to undertake such other activities as may from time to time be appropriate to further the purposes and achieve the goals set forth above.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-25869  Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
NRC MONITORS NOTICE OF UNUSUAL EVENT AT

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT, TSUNAMI ISSUES

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, through its regional office in Arlington, Tex., 

is monitoring a notice of unusual event (NOUE) at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, located near 

San Luis Obispo, Calif. Senior NRC officials are working at the agency’s Rockville, Md., 

headquarters to coordinate NRC activities with respect to the Japanese earthquake and 

subsequent tsunami.

“The NRC is closely monitoring this situation as it unfolds with respect to nuclear 

facilities within the United States. NRC staff is working closely with its resident inspectors who 

are on site to ensure safe operations,” said NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), operator of the Diablo Canyon two-reactor plant, 

declared a precautionary NOUE Unusual Event at 4:23 a.m. EST today after receiving a tsunami 

warning from the West California Emergency Management Agency. The tsunami warning was 

generated after an estimated 8.9 magnitude earthquake occurred off the eastern Japanese coast. 

The licensee reported the Diablo Canyon plant is stable and both units remain on line. 

The plant is well protected against tsunami conditions as required by NRC regulations. The NRC 

has staff at the plant keeping track of the plant’s response. 

Nuclear power plants are built to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes

and tsunamis. Even those plants that are located outside of areas with extensive seismic activity 

are designed for safety in the event of such a natural disaster. The NRC requires that safetysignificant structures, systems, and components be designed to take into account the most severe 

natural phenomena historically reported for the site and surrounding area. 

In addition to the Diablo Canyon plant, the NRC is also monitoring the San Onofre 

nuclear power plant, the Humboldt Bay spent fuel storage site and NRC-regulated nuclear 

materials sites in Hawaii and Alaska to name a few. Site personnel have informed the NRC they 

are prepared for possible tsunami effects.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 11-042 March 11, 2011