alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 211.11 Suspension, termination, and expiration of program. ( a ) *Termination or suspension by A.I.D.* All or any part of the assistance provided under the program, including commodities in transit, may be terminated or suspended by A.I.D. at its discretion if AID/W determines that a cooperating sponsor has failed to comply with the provisions of the approved Operational Plan or TA, or of this Regulation, or that the continuation of such assistance is no longer necessary or desirable. If AID/W believes that circumstances permit, AID/W will provide a nongovernmental cooperating sponsor written notice of A.I.D.'s intention to terminate or suspend the cooperating sponsor's program, together with an explanation of the reason(s) for A.I.D.'s action, at least 30 days prior to the date indicated in the notice that the program will be terminated or suspended. Comments provided by the nongovernmental cooperating sponsor prior to the effective date of the termination or suspension shall be considered by AID/W in determining whether to rescind the notice. When a program is terminated or suspended, title to commodities which have been transferred to the cooperating sponsor, or monetized proceeds, program income and real or personal property procured with monetized proceeds or program income shall, at the written request of USAID, the Diplomatic Post or AID/W, be transferred to the U.S. Government by the cooperating sponsor or shall otherwise be transferred by the cooperating sponsor as directed by A.I.D. Any then excess commodities on hand at the time the program is terminated shall be disposed of in accordance with § 211.5 (o) and (p) or as otherwise instructed by USAID or the Diplomatic Post. If it is determined that any commodity authorized to be supplied under the Operational Plan or TA is no longer available for Food for Peace programs, such authorization shall terminate with respect to any commodities which, as of the date of such determination have not been delivered f.o.b. or f.a.s. vessel, provided that every effort will be made to give adequate advance notice to protect cooperating sponsors against unnecessarily booking vessels.
( b ) *Expiration of program.* Upon expiration of the approved program under circumstances other than those described in paragraph (a), the cooperating sponsor shall deposit with the U.S. Disbursing Officer, American Embassy, with instructions to credit the deposit to CCC Account No. 20FT401, any remaining monetized proceeds or program income, or the cooperating sponsor shall obtain approval from AID/W for the use of such monetized proceeds or program income, or real or personal property procured with such proceeds or income, for purposes consistent with those authorized for support from A.I.D.
EX-10.3



 







	10.3	 	Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement of Paul W. Bridge, Jr.





Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement




          This AMENDMENT NO. 1 is entered into as of this 27 day of January, 2006 by and among LanVision
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”), LanVision, Inc., an Ohio corporation (“Company”)
and Paul W. Bridge, Jr. (“Employee”).




          WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of February 1,
2004 (“Employment Agreement”), whereby Parent and the Company agreed to employ the Employee; and




          WHEREAS, Parent, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set
forth herein;




          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which the parties hereby
acknowledge, the parties agree as follows:



In consideration of the Employee’ responsibilities and roles, Parent and the Company agree to pay
Employee effective February 1, 2006, Employee’s salary for the period commencing on such date
through January 31, 2007 shall be One Hundred Seventy-one Thousand one-hundred fifty-six Dollars
($171,156).




 









 







Continuing Agreement. Except for the changes set forth in this Amendment No. 1 the Employment
Agreement remains in full force and effect without modification.



Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts by Parent, the Company and
Employee.”




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the date set forth
above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	LanVision Systems, Inc.  
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Paul W. Bridge, Jr.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Paul W. Bridge, Jr.
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	LanVision, Inc.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Paul W. Bridge, Jr.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Paul W. Bridge, Jr.
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Employee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Paul W. Bridge, Jr.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Paul W. Bridge, Jr.
#### Tirso Negron, Appellant, v New York Medical College, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 671]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for employment discrimination, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered September 7, 1999, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court that the plaintiff’s first through seventh causes of action seek recovery in quantum meruit, not for breach of contract, and therefore must be dismissed because they relate to the employment relationship between the parties, which is governed by an express agreement *(see, Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R. R. Co.,*70 NY2d 382; *Epelbaum v Nefesh Achath B’Yisrael,*237 AD2d 327). Similarly, the eighth cause of action sounding in fraud, *293and the ninth cause of action alleging unjust enrichment, were properly dismissed *(see, Davidson Metals Corp. v Marlo Dev. Co.,*238 AD2d 465; *Cleffi v Crescent Beach Club,*222 AD2d 642). To the extent the plaintiff contends that he pleaded causes of action alleging breach of contract, he has failed to demonstrate any breach of his employment agreement.

Further, the causes of action alleging employment discrimination were properly dismissed, as they were supported only by conclusory statements of no probative value which did not raise material issues of fact *(see generally, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green,*411 US 792; *Shumway v United Parcel Serv.,*118 F3d 60, 64).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the plaintiff’s contention regarding the inapplicability of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 *(see,*29 USC § 1001*et seq.).*Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller,. Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
### §19106. Advisory committee

#### (a) In general

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) 1 the Director shall establish an advisory committee to assess, and make recommendations regarding, the activities carried out under this part.

#### (b) Membership

The advisory committee members shall—

(1) be individuals with relevant experience or expertise, including individuals from industry and national labs, educators, academic subject matter experts, including individuals with knowledge of key technology focus areas and their impact on United States national security and geostrategic leadership, the technical and social dimensions of science and technology, technology transfer experts, labor organizations, representatives of civil society, and other nongovernmental organizations; and

(2) consist of at least 10 members broadly representative of stakeholders, including no less than 3 members from the private sector, none of whom shall be an employee of the Federal Government, and no less than 1 member with significant expertise in United States national security and economic competitiveness.

#### (c) Responsibilities

The Committee's responsibilities shall include—

(1) reviewing and advising on activities carried out under this part;

(2) proposing strategies for fulfilling the purposes in section 19102 of this title;

(3) proposing potential areas of research, particularly as relevant to United States societal, national, and geostrategic challenges; and

(4) other relevant issues as determined by the Director.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10386, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1578.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Advisory Committee Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 92–463, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 770, which was set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and was substantially repealed and restated in chapter 10 (§1001 et seq.) of Title 5 by Pub. L. 117–286, §§3(a), 7, Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4197, 4361. For disposition of sections of the Act into chapter 10 of Title 5, see Disposition Table preceding section 101 of Title 5.

1 See References in Text note below.
### §§2979a, 2980. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519

Section 2979a, Pub. L. 88–452, title VI, §638, as added Pub. L. 95–568, §13(k), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2436, related to utilization, etc., of regional offices.

Section 2980, Pub. L. 88–452, title VI, §639, formerly §638, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §108(m)(3), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 721; renumbered §639, Pub. L. 95–568, §13(k), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2436, defined applicable terms.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Elbert Ross, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon the defendant’s application for leave to appeal on handwritten papers, permission was granted but counsel was not assigned. It appeared that the petitioner had in his possession all of the papers upon which the application for a writ of error *coram nobis*had been heard in the court below. The only question raised by the defendant is whether he was properly advised by his attorneys at the time he pleaded guilty to murder, second degree. That is a question upon which access to papers would not be material or relevant and we have, therefore, felt it proper to proceed to a disposition of the case *(People*v. *Breslin,*4 N Y 2d 73; *People*v. *McCallum,*8 N Y 2d 155). The defendant’s contention affords no ground to disturb the judgment of conviction; therefore we affirm. In the defendant’s brief in this court the defendant attempts to raise a question concerning his mental condition at the time of his plea but nothing was said about that question in his petition. The question is not before us and we do not pass upon it. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court denying defendant’s motion to vacate judgment of March 15, 1955 convicting defendant of the crime of murder, second degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
..
al sservoir

63. 62 R6IW 6d

|__| Classification A - Open to Leasing with Standard Stipulations oO 0_ 20 40 60 80 100
Classification B - Open to Leasing with Minor Constraints Kilometers

HE Classification C - Open to Leasing with Major Constraints ee 50

ME Classification D - Closed to Leasing Miles

Map 2-35
Oil and Gas Classifications
Alternative 1

(See Table 2-1 for additional information)

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
60 80 100

Y ~— Yy Y Om.

Map 2-5
OHV Designations
Alternative 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Janus Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Louis
S. Beck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Louis S. Beck
------------------------------
Louis S. Beck
Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2003
WAIVER  AND  MODIFICATION


 


 


 


Ortec International, Inc.


3960 Broadway


New York, NY  10032



Attn:  Alan W. Schoenbart


 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to the Registration Rights Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of October 12, 2005 by and among Ortec International, Inc. (the “Company”) and the purchasers listed on Schedule I thereto.  Capitalized terms not defined in this waiver and modification shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.  The undersigned, being the Holders of a majority of the Registrable Securities now outstanding and pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 (f) of the Agreement agree and consent to the following:


 


1.  The undersigned waive the Company’s obligations arising from those portions of the provisions of Section 7 (e) of the Agreement which require the Company to make payments, as liquidated damages, to the Holders as a result of the Company’s failure to file the Registration Statement on or prior to the Filing Date.  The undersigned do not waive the Company’s obligations, also set forth in Section 7(e) of the Agreement, to make payments, as liquidated damages, to the Holders if the Registration Statement is not declared effective by the Commission on or prior to the Effectiveness Date (as modified in Section 2 below).


 


2.  The definition of “Effectiveness Date” in Section 1 of the Agreement is changed to read as follows:


 


“Effectiveness Date” means with respect to the Registration Statement the earlier of the one hundred fifth (105th) Business Day following the Filing Date or the date which is within three (3) Business Days of the date on which the Commission informs the Company that the Commission (i) will not review the Registration Statement or (ii) that the Company may request the acceleration of the effectiveness of the Registration Statement.


 


3.  The undersigned agree that the following shall be added to Schedule II (“Other Securities Permitted to be Included in the Registration Statement”) to the Agreement:


 


 






 



	
             
 	
            10.
 	
            So many shares of Common Stock issued, or issuable upon the exercise of warrants issued (estimated to be 38,000,000 shares in aggregate), in a transaction for the acquisition by merger of another biotechnology company.
 



 

 



	
             
 	
            11.
 	
            So many shares of Common Stock that may be issued, or issuable upon the exercise of warrants or upon the conversion of convertible securities issued, in raising up to $10,000,000 in a private placement of the Company’s securities within the next 10 months.
 



 

 


 



	
            Yours very truly,
 



 


 



	
            By:
 	
             

	
             
	
            Print Name:
 
	
             
	
            Title:
 	
             

	
             
	
            Date:
#### In the Matter of Harry I. Greene against The People of the State of New York et al.

Motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente and Stevens, JJ.
#### § 1429.28 Petitions for amendment of regulations.

Any interested person may petition the Board or General Counsel in writing for amendments to any portion of these regulations. Such petition shall identify the portion of the regulations involved and provide the specific language of the proposed amendment together with a statement of grounds in support of such petition.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1584
RAYMOND M. WEINSTEIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WILLIAM J. HOUSE, individually and in his official capacity as Dean of the College ofSocial Sciences and Professions with USCAiken; TRUDY K. HENSON, individually and inher official capacity as Chair of the Department of Sociology with USC-Aiken; B LANCHE L.PREMO-HOPKINS, individually and in her official capacity as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs with USC-Aiken; ROBERT E. ALEXANDER, individually and in his official capacity as Chancellor with USC-Aiken; JOHN M. PALMS, individually and in his o fficial capacity as President of the University of South Carolina, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, D istrict Judge. (CA-94-321-3-23BC) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 23, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Raymond M. Weinstein, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order adopting thereport and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the grounds that Appellant's claims are barred by the principles of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Weinstein v. University of South Carolina , No. CA-94-321-3-23BC (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 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.

AFFIRMED3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM U.S.
FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      195
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,726
<PP&E>                                             944
<DEPRECIATION>                                      95
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,207
<BONDS>                                         19,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           426<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,515
<SALES>                                          2,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,614
<CGS>                                            9,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,870)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,870)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.55)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.55)<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Includes 3,186,280 shares of Class A common stock that are redeemable under
certain circumstances by the company for reasons not under the Company's
control.
<F2>Per share amounts are determined by dividing loss applicable to common
stockholders by weighted average shares outstanding.  Weighted average shares
include redeemable common shares outstanding.  Loss applicable to common
stockholders represents net loss adjusted for dividends accreted on the
redeemable preferred stock.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR 515. License No.
Name/Address
Date reissued004108N
DRT International, Incorporated, 7762 NW. 72nd Avenue, Medley, FL 33166
October 24, 2004.004263N
Distribution Transportation Services Company, 827 West Terra Lane, O'Fallon, MO 63366
September 20, 2004.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. 04-27442 Filed 12-14-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher B. Hill, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[715 NYS2d 683]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Same Memorandum as in *People v Hill*([appeal No. 1] 277 AD2d 930 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J. — Attempted Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.
### §2459j–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 111–117, div. B, title III, Dec. 16, 2009, 123 Stat. 3144, which related to deposit of proceeds from lease of non-excess property, was transferred and is set out as a note under section 20145 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.