alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

p0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

141976 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141976 

 COA: 291527 

Wayne CC: 08-016290-FC 

SHELTON CARTER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §454. Appropriate agencies

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the appropriate agency under this section with respect to an alleged violation of part A of subchapter II shall be the Board. The complaint in an action involving such an alleged violation shall be processed under the procedures specified by the President, or the designee of the President, in such regulations as the President or designee may issue.

(b) Exceptions.—

(1) Discrimination.—For purposes of any action arising under section 411 (or any action alleging intimidation, reprisal, or discrimination under section 417 relating to any practice made unlawful under section 411), the appropriate agency shall be the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the complaint in any such action shall be processed under the same administrative procedures as any such complaint filed by any employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government (other than a covered employee).

(2) Mixed cases.—In the case of any covered employee (within the meaning of section 411) who has been affected by an action which an employee of an executive agency may appeal to the Board and who alleges that a basis for the action was discrimination prohibited by section 411 (or any action alleging intimidation, reprisal, or discrimination under section 417 relating to any practice made unlawful under section 411), the initial appropriate agency shall be the Board, and such matter shall thereafter be processed in accordance with section 7702(a)–(d) (disregarding paragraph (2) of such subsection (a)) and (f) of title 5.

(3) Judicial review.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any provision of law referenced in paragraph (1) or (2)), judicial review of any administrative decision under this subsection shall be by appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under section 1296 of title 28.

(Added Pub. L. 104–331, §2(a), Oct. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 4067.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1997, except that subsec. (a) of this section effective Oct. 26, 1996, see section 471 of this title.
§ 923.11 Uses subject to management. ( a ) ( 1 ) The management program for each coastal state must include a definition of what shall constitute permissible land uses and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters.
( 2 ) The management program must identify those land and water uses that will be subject to the terms of the management program. These uses shall be those with direct and significant impacts on coastal waters or on geographic areas likely to be affected by or vulnerable to sea level rise.
( 3 ) The management program must explain how those uses identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section will be managed. The management program must also contain those enforceable policies, legal authorities, performance standards or other techniques or procedures that will govern whether and how uses will be allowed, conditioned, modified, encouraged or prohibited.
( b ) In identifying uses and their appropriate management, a State should analyze the quality, location, distribution and demand for the natural and man-made resources of their coastal zone, and should consider potential individual and cumulative impacts of uses on coastal waters.
( c ) States should utilize the following types of analyses: ( 1 ) Capability and suitability of resources to support existing or projected uses;
( 2 ) Environmental impacts on coastal resources;
( 3 ) Compatibility of various uses with adjacent uses or resources;
( 4 ) Evaluation of inland and other location alternatives; and
( 5 ) Water dependency of various uses and other social and economic considerations.
( d ) Examination of the following factors is suggested: ( 1 ) Air and water quality;
( 2 ) Historic, cultural and esthetic resources where coastal development is likely to affect these resources;
( 3 ) Open space or recreational uses of the shoreline where increased access to the shorefront is a particularly important concern;
( 4 ) Floral and faunal communities where loss of living marine resources or threats to endangered or threatened coastal species are particularly important concerns.
( 5 ) Information on the impacts of global warming and resultant sea level rise on natural resources such as beaches, dunes, estuaries, and wetlands, on salinization of drinking water supplies, and on properties, infrastructure and public works.
### §10174. Consideration in siting facilities

The Secretary, in siting Federal research projects, shall give special consideration to proposals from States where a repository is located.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title I, §174, as added Pub. L. 100–202, §101(d) [title III, §300], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5031, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–240.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 100–202 and Pub. L. 100–203 added identical sections.
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF

NICK P. CALAMOS



AMENDMENT NO. 1, dated as of June 1, 2007 (“Amendment No. 1”), to the Executive Employment
Agreement of Nick P. Calamos dated as of October 26, 2004 (the “Agreement”), by and among Calamos
Asset Management, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Calamos Advisors LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, and Nick P. Calamos, an individual.



WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14 of the Agreement, the parties hereto desire to amend the terms of
the Agreement to reflect a certain revision.



NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:





	 	1.	 	Amendment. Section 4(c)(i)(B)(2) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide
as follows: “any material adverse change in the status, position or responsibilities of
Executive, including a change in Executive’s reporting relationship or removal from or
failure to re-elect Executive as a member of the Board;”.
	 
	 	2.	 	Reaffirmation. In all other respects the Agreement remains the same and in
full force and effect.
	 
	 	3.	 	Effective Date. This Amendment No. 1 shall become effective as of the date
first written above (the “Effective Date”). On and after the Effective Date of this
Amendment No. 1, each reference in the Agreement to “this Agreement,” “hereunder,”
“hereof,” or words of like import referring to the Agreement shall mean and be a reference
to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 1.
	 
	 	4.	 	Governing Law. The validity and construction of this Amendment No. 1 shall be
determined and governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Illinois without regard
to conflict of laws principles.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the day and year
first written above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CALAMOS ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.	 	 	 	NICK P. CALAMOS	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Its:
	 	/s/ John P. Calamos, Sr.
 

Chairman, CEO & Co-CIO
 

	 	 	 	 /s/
Nick P. Calamos
 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	CALAMOS ADVISORS LLC	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:

Its:
	 	/s/ Patrick H. Dudasik
 

EVP, COO, CFO & Treasurer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000238

18-DEC-2015

11:27 AM
#### In the Matter of Apprentiace S., Appellant. New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 506]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered December 6, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order, among other things, extended respondent’s placement with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to September 9, 2006.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Clifford O.,*177 AD2d 837, 838 [1991]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
#### In the Matter of John Shields et al., Appellants, v Charlotte Madigan et al., Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 890]

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Charlotte Madigan, Town Clerk of the Town of Orangetown, to issue marriage licenses to the petitioners, the petitioners appeal from a judg*1037ment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated October 18, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in *Hernandez v Robles*(7 NY3d 338 [2006]). Ritter, J.P., Rivera, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
| **IT Transformation Costs by Segment (Tables)** | 12 Months Ended                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| **IT Transformation [Abstract]**                |                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| IT Transformation                               | IT Transformation Costs by SegmentYear ended December 31 (In millions)2010CNA Specialty$8CNA Commercial15Life & Group Non-Core10Corporate & Other Non-Core3Total IT Transformation Costs$36 |

| X                                                                                                                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**cna_ItTransformationAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
IT transformation costs by segment [Table Text Block]
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cna_ItTransformationCostsBySegmentTableTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Errata Chapter 5:

Section 5.3.2.8 Deposition metric: Developing N and S tradeoff curves from the deposition metrics for the acid

- sensitive categories

Pg 5

- 47 line 3

- 4 It is incorrectly stated that “The deposition metric for a category will be a single, specified value for the deposition of N and S“. The deposition metric results from the distribution of critical loads based on equation 1.



## ( **)** 

## [ **] [**  **]** Q ANC BC S N CL O ANC ) ( lim *

lim **− =**  **+** (1)

Equation 1 represents that maximum amount of SOx that can be deposited to an

eco system, when N deposition is ≤ Neco, before exceeding its critical load ( max SOx DL )

. Once the deposition metric is selected, Neco is added to calculate the maximum amount of nitrogen that can be deposited to an ecosystem before exceeding its critical load ( max N DL ) . Three sets of coordinates define the N + S tradeoff curves: (0, max SOx DL ), (Neco,

max SOx DL ) and ( max N DL ,0)

.

(0, DL max (s)) (Neco, DL max (S))

(DL max (N), 0) 0 50 100

0 50 100

N (meq/m 2 /yr)SO2+SO4-2(meq/m2/yr)

Section 5.3.3.4 Oxidized Sulfur and Nitrogen Pollutan t Species Pg 56 line 17

- 18 It is incorrectly stated that “CMAQ does not currently provide simulations of coarse particulate sulfate and nitrate”. The current version of CMAQ does include this process.
§ 300.32 Form of separate guaranty. ( a ) The following are suggested forms of separate guaranties under section 9 of the Act which may be used by a guarantor residing in the United States on or as part of an invoice or other document relating to the marketing or handling of any wool products listed and designated therein and showing the date of such invoice or other document and the signature and address of the guarantor: ( 1 ) *General form.* “We guarantee that the wool products specified herein are not misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act and rules and regulations thereunder.”
( 2 ) *Guaranty based on guaranty.* “Based upon a guaranty received, we guarantee that the wool products specified herein are not misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act and rules and regulations thereunder.”
Note to paragraph ( a
):
The printed name and address on the invoice or other document will suffice to meet the signature and address requirements.
( b ) The mere disclosure of required information including the fiber content of wool products on a label or on an invoice or other document relating to its marketing or handling shall not be considered a form of separate guaranty.
[79 FR 32164, June 4, 2014]
§ 437.5 Sales conducted in Spanish or other languages besides English. ( a ) If the seller conducts the offer for sale, sale, or promotion of a business opportunity in Spanish, the seller must provide the disclosure document required by § 437.3(a) in the form and language set forth in appendix B to this part, and the disclosures required by §§ 437.3(a) and 437.4 must be made in Spanish.
( b ) If the seller conducts the offer for sale, sale, or promotion of a business opportunity in a language other than English or Spanish, the seller must provide the disclosure document required by § 437.3(a) using the form and an accurate translation of the language set forth in appendix A to this part, and the disclosures required by §§ 437.3(a) and 437.4 must be made in that language.
#### In the Matter of Mackson P. McDowall, for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law.

[820 NYS2d 919]

Order entered denying application for reinstatement. Same per curiam as in *Matter of McDowall*(33 AD3d 246 [2006]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Martoche and Smith, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of Jessie E. Grantham, Deceased. Charles A. Lott, as Executor of Ethal M. Lott, Deceased, Appellant; Esther Margulies, as Executrix of Jessie E. Grantham, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

*659Paragraph “Third” of the will does not describe or refer to any property which is to be given nor does it mention or describe who is to receive it. Whatever the intention of the testatrix may have been she has failed to express it. Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and Mac Crate, JJ., concur; Johnston, Acting P. J., concurs in the dismissal of the appeal from the decree entered April 19, 1951, but dissents from the modification of the decree entered December 29, 1950, and votes to affirm. *(Matter of Selner,*261 App. Div. 618, affd. 287 N. Y. 664; *Masterson*V. *Townshend,*123 N. Y. 458.)
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

                                 LOAN AGREEMENT

                          Dated as of January 26, 2007

     Allegro MicroSystems, Inc., a U.S. corporation ("AMI"), and Sanken Electric
Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation ("JSK"), hereby agrees as follows:

1.   The Loan. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, JSK hereby
     lends to AMI, and AMI hereby borrows from JSK, US $3,300,000 on January 26,
     2007 (the "Loan").

2.   Repayment of Loan. The Loan shall be repaid in the lump on January 25,
     2008. JSK shall accept an early paying off the Loan by AMI anytime with no
     penalty.

3.   Interest. Interest shall accrue on the unpaid principal balance. The
     interest rate for the Loan is equal to the announced 3-month BBA LIBOR
     (London Inter Bank Offered Rate) + 0.45% spread. The interest rate shall be
     changed to new rate every three months. The interest rate for each period
     shall be determined by the following rule:

     Interest Rate from April 1 to June 30: 3-month BBA LIBOR on the last bank
     trading day in March + 0.45%.

     Interest Rate from July 1 to September 30: 3-month BBA LIBOR on the last
     bank trading day in June + 0.45%.

     Interest Rate from October 1 to December 31: 3-month BBA LIBOR on the last
     bank trading day in September + 0.45%.

     Interest Rate from January 1 to March 31: 3-month BBA LIBOR on the last
     bank trading day in December + 0.45%.

<PAGE>

4.   Payment of Interest. An accrued interest shall be paid on January 25, 2008
     with the principal.

5.   Manner of Payment. Payments of principal and interest shall be made in an
     U.S. Dollar in immediately available funds. Payments shall be remitted to
     JSK's account #68910 at The Resona Bank, Ltd., Ikebukuro Branch.

6.   Unsecured Loan. Any assets of AMI or other collateral do not secure this
     Loan.

7.   No Separate Note. This Loan is not evidenced by a separate promissory note.
     This Agreement itself shall constitute evidence of indebtedness.

8.   Acceleration. In the event that AMI should fail to make timely payments of
     principal or interest pursuant to this agreement, and such default is not
     cured within ten days, then, as JSK's option, JSK may declare the entire
     outstanding principal balance of the Loan to be immediately due and
     payable.

9.   Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the
     laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

SANKEN ELECTRIC CO., LTD.               Allegro MicroSystems, Inc.


By: /s/ Akira Ota                       By: /s/ Mark A. Feragne
    ---------------------------------       ------------------------------------
    Akira Ota                               Mark A. Feragne

Title: Corporate Officer,               Title: Chief Financial Officer
       Planning and Finance Division,
       Administration Headquarters
#### Edgar J. Lauer et al. v. City of New York, Impleaded with New York Steam Corporation et al. (and Seventeen Other Actions Consolidated Herewith.)

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan,. JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
#### Donald M. Case, Appellant, v. Paul Menard, Respondent; Aurel Menard, Defendant, and John Rizzo, Respondent.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See post, p. 997.]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-15-0122:  Summary Findings Resulting from the Staff Review of the 2015 Decommissioning Funding Status Reports for Operating Power Reactor Licensees

Accession Number: ML15237A367

Date Released: Thursday, October 15, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15237A369 - SECY-15-0122: Summary Findings Resulting from the Staff Review of the 2015 Decommissioning Funding Status Reports for Operating Power Reactor Licensees (4 page(s), 9/28/2015)
    - ML15237A377 - SECY-15-0122: Enclosure 1 - 2015 Decommissioning Funding Assurance SECY Paper Summary Spreadsheet of All Plants (4 page(s), 9/28/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 801.31 Acquisitions of voting securities by offerees in tender offers. Whenever an offeree in a noncash tender offer is required to, and does, file notification with respect to an acquisition described in § 801.2(e): ( a ) The waiting period with respect to such acquisition shall begin upon filing of notification by the offeree, pursuant to §§ 801.30 and 803.10(a)(1);
( b ) The person within which the issuer of the shares to be acquired by the offeree is included shall file notification as required by § 801.30(b);
( c ) Any request for additional information or documentary material pursuant to section 7A(e) and § 803.20 shall extend the waiting period in accordance with § 803.20(c); and
( d ) The voting securities to be acquired by the offeree may be placed into escrow, for the benefit of the offeree, pending expiration or termination of the waiting period with respect to the acquisition of such securities; *Provided however,* That no person may vote any voting securities placed into escrow pursuant to this paragraph.
Example: Assume that “A,” which has annual net sales exceeding $100 million (as adjusted), makes a tender offer for voting securities of corporation X. The consideration for the tender offer is to be voting securities of A. “S,” a shareholder of X with total assets exceeding $10 million (as adjusted), wishes to tender its holdings of X and in exchange would receive shares of A valued in excess of $50 million (as adjusted). Under this section, “S's” acquisition of the shares of A would be an acquisition separately subject to the requirements of the act. Before “S” may acquire the voting securities of A, “S” must first file notification and observe a waiting period—which is separate from any waiting period that may apply with respect to “A” and “X.” Since § 801.30 applies, the waiting period applicable to “A” and “S” begins upon filing by “S,” and “A” must file with respect to “S's” acquisition within 15 days pursuant to § 801.30(b). Should the waiting period with respect to “A” and “X” expire or be terminated prior to the waiting period with respect to “S” and “A,” “S” may wish to tender its X-shares and place the A-shares into a nonvoting escrow until the expiration or termination of the latter waiting period.
[43 FR 33537, July 31, 1978, as amended at 66 FR 8690, Feb. 1, 2001; 70 FR 4992, Jan. 31, 2005]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-15-0048: Request for Approval of Staff Recommendation to Authorize Babcock and Wilcox Nuclear Operations Group-Lynchburg to Use Section 161A Preemption Authority

Accession Number: ML15030A200

Date Released: Monday, August 17, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15030A204 - SECY-15-0048: Request for Approval of Staff Recommendation to  Authorize Babcock and Wilcox Nuclear Operations Group-Lynchburg to Use Section 161A Preemption Authority (6 page(s), 3/31/2015)
    - ML15044A450 - SECY-15-0048: Enclosure 1, Babcock & Wilcox Preemption Technical Evaluation (6 page(s), 3/31/2015)
    - ML14346A189 - SECY-15-0048: Enclosure 2, Confirmatory Order for Babcock & Wilcox NOG Regarding Preemption Authority (10 page(s), 8/5/2015)
    - ML15030A211 - SECY-15-0048:  Enclosure 3 - 08/10/15, Letter to Governor Terry McAuliffe from Chairman Burns Informing Him that the Commission is Granting the Babcock and Wilcox Nuclear Operations Group-Lynchburg to use Section 161A Preemption Authority. (1 page(s), 8/10/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer