alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7374. Energy self-sufficiency initiatives

#### (a) Establishment of 3-year pilot program

There is hereby established under the direction of the Secretary a 3-year pilot energy self-sufficiency program to demonstrate energy self-sufficiency through the use of renewable energy resources in one or more States in the United States.

#### (b) Establishment of subprograms to pilot programs; scope of subprograms

As a part of the pilot program, the Secretary shall establish such subprograms as the Secretary determines are necessary to achieve the purpose of this section, including subprograms—

(1) to promote the development and utilization of synergistic combinations of different renewable energy resources in specific projects aimed at reducing fossil fuel importation;

(2) to initiate and encourage energy self-sufficiency at appropriate levels of government;

(3) to stimulate private industry participation in the realization of the objective stated in subsection (a); and

(4) to stimulate the utilization of abandoned or underutilized industrial facilities for the generation of energy from any locally available renewable resource, such as municipal solid waste, agricultural waste, or forest products waste.

#### (c) Implementation of subprograms; preparation of plan of program and additional Federal actions

In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary is authorized to assign to an existing office in the Department of Energy the responsibility of undertaking and carrying out the subprograms established under subsection (b). In addition, the Secretary shall prepare a detailed plan within one hundred eighty days of June 30, 1980, setting forth (1) the 3-year pilot program itself, and (2) any additional Federal actions needed to encourage and promote the adoption of programs for energy self-sufficiency.

#### (d) Submission of plan and implementation report to Congress

The Secretary shall submit to the Congress, within one year after June 30, 1980, the plan prepared under the second sentence of subsection (c) along with a report suggesting the legislative initiatives needed to fully implement such plan.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title IV, §406, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 716.)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2643

To protect innocent parties from certain fees imposed by depository 

institutions for dishonored checks, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2005

Mr. WEINER (for himself, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BLUMENAUER, 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. 

DEFAZIO, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. EVANS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mrs. 

JONES of Ohio, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. LEE, 

Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, 

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. STARK, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. 

WAXMAN, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To protect innocent parties from certain fees imposed by 

depository institutions for dishonored checks, and for 

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Innocent Check De5 positor Protection Act’’. 
2

•HR 2643 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CERTAIN CHECK DISHONORMENT FEES PROHIB2 ITED. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 607 of the Expedited 

4 Funds Availability Act (12 U.S.C. 4006) (relating to mis5 cellaneous provisions) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(f) FEES ON DISHONORED CHECKS.—

8 ‘‘(1) RECEIVING DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION.—In 

9 the case of a check drawn on an account at an origi10 nating institution which is dishonored by the origi11 nating institution due to the lack of sufficient funds 

12 in such account to pay the check, a receiving deposi13 tory institution may not impose any fee on the de14 positor, in connection with such check, due to such 

15 dishonorment. 

16 ‘‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—No provision 

17 of this section shall be construed as affecting any in18 tervening depository institution or the costs of the 

19 services provided by such depository institution.’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

21 this section shall apply after the end of the 180-day period 

22 beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Amendment to Confirmation of OTC Convertible Note - JPMorgan Chase Bank



  
 Exhibit 10.89

 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association 
 P.O. Box 161 
 60 Victoria Embankment 
 London EC4Y 0JP 
 England 

August 30, 2010 
 To: Gilead Sciences, Inc.  
 333 Lakeside Drive 

Foster City, California 94404 

			
	 Attention:
	  	 Treasurer

	 Telephone No.:
	  	 (650) 522-5727

	 Facsimile No.:
	  	 (650) 522-3000


 Re: Base Call
Option Transaction (2016) 
 1.        Reference is made to the letter
agreement Re: Base Call Option Transaction (2016) dated July 26, 2010 and entered into between into between JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, London Branch (“Dealer”) and Gilead Sciences, Inc.
(“Counterparty”) (the “Confirmation”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Confirmation. 

2.        Whereas the Confirmation defined the Free Convertibility Date as
April 1, 2016, but Counterparty and Dealer wish to define the Free Convertibility Date as February 1, 2016; 
 3.        Now, therefore, each of Counterparty and Dealer do hereby agree that: 

a.        the definition of the Free Convertibility Date in the Confirmation is
hereby replaced in its entirety by February 1, 2016; 

b.        (i) J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., an affiliate of Dealer
(“JPMSI”), has acted solely as agent and not as principal with respect to the Transaction and (ii) JPMSI has no obligation or liability, by way of guaranty, endorsement or otherwise, in any manner in respect of the Transaction
(including, if applicable, in respect of the settlement thereof); 

c.        each of Counterparty and Dealer will look solely to the other party
(or any guarantor in respect thereof) for performance of such other party’s obligations under the Transaction; and 
 d.        this agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if all of the signatures thereto
and hereto were upon the same instrument. 
 [Signature Page to Follow] 







  
 
			
	Very truly yours,
	
	J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as agent for JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jason M. Wood

	 Authorized Signatory

	 Name:
	 	 Jason M. Wood

Managing Director



 Accepted and confirmed: 
 Gilead Sciences, Inc. 

 

			
	 By:
	 	     /s/ Brett A. Pletcher

	 Name:
	 	 Brett A. Pletcher

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President and General Counsel
Case 3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document 64 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document 64 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 3
2/8/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document 64 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Dorothy Rizzo, Respondent, v. Newton P. Rizzo, Appellant.

— -Motion granted and time for filing brief extended on condition that such brief is filed on or before November 10, 1960, and time for argument of appeal extended to November 1960 Term of court.
#### Myrian Gonzalez, Appellant, v City of Yonkers, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[716 NYS2d 893]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated September 29, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant City of Yonkers for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Even if the left-turn traffic signal at the intersection at issue was not operational at the time of the accident, the status of the signal was not a proximate cause of the accident *(see, Rubinfeld v City of New York,*263 AD2d 448). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
ex10-2.htm






AMENDMENT #4


 


to the


 


COMMERCIAL SUPPLY AGREEMENT


(originally effective May 23, 2007)


 


by and between


 


LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. (“LGD”) - formerly named LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.


 


and


 


UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION (“UDC”)












This Amendment #4 shall amend and modify, to the extent of any inconsistency, the provisions of the above-referenced Commercial Supply Agreement, as previously amended effective as of June 30, 2008, again effective as of June 30, 2009, and again effective as of December 31, 2009 (the “Agreement”).  This Amendment #4 shall be effective as of June 30, 2010.







1.           Article 9.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the term of the Agreement for six (6) additional months, through December 31, 2010.







2.           Except as set forth in this Amendment #4, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, intending to be legally bound, have caused this Amendment #4 to be executed by their duly authorized representatives:












LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.                                                                           UNIVERSAL DISPLAY CORPORATION


















	
By:

	
           /s/ Byung Chul Ahn                                

	  	
By:

	
           /s/ Steven V. Abramson 


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Name:

	
           Byung Chul Ahn                                

	  	
Name:

	
           Steven V. Abramson 


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Title:

	
           Vice President                                

	  	
Title:

	
           President                      


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Date:

	
           July 15, 2010                                

	  	
Date:

	
           July 23, 2010                                

















UDC and LGD Confidential
#### Stanley Bethiel as Administrator of the Estate of Diane Bethiel, Deceased, Plaintiff, v Action Crane Corp., Appellant, and Alan Saxton et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, defendant Action Crane Corporation (Action) appeals from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 22, 1976, which, after a jury trial of separate issues pursuant to CPLR 603, adjudged that (1) at the time of the accident in question defendant Saxton was the employee of defendant Action and not the employee of defendant Delta Erection Corp., sued as Delta Erectors, Inc. (Delta), and (2) at the time of that accident there was no written lease agreement which provided for indemnification by Delta of Action for damages as a result of the accident. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs jointly to respondents. This action arises out of a collision on December 19, 1973 between an automobile owned and operated by the decedent, Diane Bethiel, and a crane operated by defendant Alan Saxton. The accident took place on a public highway while Saxton was driving the crane away from a construction site. The crane was owned by defendant Action, which had leased it to defendant Delta. The complaint alleges that the crane had been negligently operated, that the collision caused injuries to Diane Bethiel which resulted in her death and that both Action and Delta employed Saxton at the time of the accident. On Action’s motion, Special Term ordered a separate trial on the questions of (1) whether Action or Delta employed Saxton at the time of the accident and (2) whether, at the time of the accident, a lease was in effect which obligated Delta to indemnify Action for any damages resulting from this action. The jury decided against Action on both questions. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings. The issue of Saxton’s employment is one of fact, which turns on the question of who exercised control over him at the time of the accident (see *Monell v International Business Machs. Corp.,*47 AD2d 637). At the time of the accident Saxton had left Delta’s construction site and, in fact, was returning the crane to Action’s yard, as Action had directed. Under these circumstances the jury could properly conclude that Saxton was under the control of Action, and not Delta, at the time in question. We have examined Action’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P., Hartuscello, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Vertrue Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary A. Johnson,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, to my
knowledge, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Gary A. Johnson
-------------------
Gary A. Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Vertrue Incorporated
May 10, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28140]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee 2005 Public 
Meetings

ACTION: Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee 2005 Public 
Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 108-15, Sec. 103, the United States 
Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) meetings 
for the calendar year 2005. These meetings are open to the public. The 
purpose of these meetings is to advise the Secretary of the Treasury on 
designs pertaining to the coinage of the United States and for other 
purposes.

January 25, 2005--Washington, DC
March 15, 2005--Washington, DC
May 24, 2005--Washington, DC
July 28, 2005--San Jose, CA
September 27, 2005--Washington, DC
November 15, 2005--Washington, DC

    The meeting times and locations will be announced at least 2 weeks 
prior to each meeting. Interested persons should call 202-354-7502 for 
the latest update on meeting time and location.
    Public Law 108-15 established the CCAC to:
    <bullet> Advise the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or 
design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, 
congressional gold medals, and national and other medals.
    <bullet> Advise the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the 
events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of 
commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the 
year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
    <bullet> Make recommendations with respect to the mintage level for 
any commemorative coin recommended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madelyn Simmons Marchessault; United 
States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20220, or call 202-354-6669.
    Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the 
CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following 
number: 202-756-6830.

    Authority: Public Law 108-15 (April 23, 2003)

    Dated: December 20, 2004.
Henrietta Holsman Fore,
Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 04-28140 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN S. ELPEDES,

Petitioner,

v.

FERNANDO GONZALEZ, warden,

Respondent.                                                           /

No. C 09-362 MHP (pr)

JUDGMENT

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: July 28, 2010                                              Marilyn Hall PatelUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00362-MHP   Document 10   Filed 07/29/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T01:48:15-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17

U.S. Code).
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Vertrue Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary A.
Johnson, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, to my knowledge, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Gary A. Johnson
-------------------------
Gary A. Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Vertrue Incorporated
November 9, 2006




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS-WEST, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JOHN BORSOS, GAIL BUHLER, RALPH

CORNEJO, JOAN EMSLIE, MARTI GARZA,

GLENN GOLDSTEIN, EMILY GORDON,

JASON JOHNSON, MARK KIPFER, GABE

KRISTAL, MICHAEL KRIVOSH, PAUL

KUMAR, LAURA KURRE, BARBARA

LEWIS, DANIEL MARTIN, FREJA NELSON,

ANDREW REID, JORGE RODRIGUEZ,

SAL ROSSELLI, FRED SEAVEY, IAN SELDEN,

PETER TAPPEINER, JOHN VELLARDITA,

PHYLLIS WILLETT, AND NATIONAL UNION

OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT

AFTER BENCH TRIAL

A bench trial was held on the issue of whether the Education Fund defendants —

including defendants Sal Rosselli, John Borsos, Laura Kurre, Ralph Cornejo, Will Clayton and

John Vellardita in their capacities as trustees or former trustees of the SEIU United Healthcare

Workers-West and Joint Employer Education Fund and Mary Ruth Gross in her capacity as

executive director of the Education Fund — breached any duty in adopting or implementing an

amendment to the trust agreement governing the Education Fund. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) and

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 653 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the accompanying findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court finds that there is no just

reason to delay entry of judgment on these Education Fund claims. Judgment is therefore now

entered favor of plaintiffs and against the Education Fund defendants on the Education Fund

claims. Judgment was previously entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) based on the jury verdict on all

other claims except the Section 301 claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 653 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 203.359 Time of conveyance to the Secretary. ( a ) *For mortgages insured under firm commitments issued prior to November 19, 1992 or under direct endorsement processing where the credit worksheet was signed by the mortgagee's approved underwriter prior to November 19, 1992.* After acquiring good marketable title to and possession of the property the mortgagee must transfer the property to the Secretary: ( 1 ) Within 30 days after acquiring possession of the mortgaged property by foreclosure or other means; or
( 2 ) Within such further time as may be necessary to complete the title examination and perfect the title.
( b ) *For mortgages insured under firm commitments issued on or after November 19, 1992, or under direct endorsement processing where the credit worksheet was signed by the mortgagee's underwriter on or after November 19, 1992* — ( 1 ) *Conveyance by the mortgagee.* The mortgagee must acquire good marketable title and transfer the property to the Secretary within 30 days of the later of: ( i ) Filing for record the foreclosure deed;
( ii ) Recording date of deed in lieu of foreclosure;
( iii ) Acquiring possession of the property;
( iv ) Expiration of the redemption period; or
( v ) Such further time as the Secretary may approve in writing.
( 2 ) *Direct conveyance.* In cases where the mortgagee arranges for a direct conveyance of the property to the Secretary, the mortgagee must ensure that the property is transferred to the Secretary within 30 days of the reasonable diligence time frame specified in § 203.356 of this part.
[57 FR 47971, Oct. 20, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 36453, July 10, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.3 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions “department”, “elderly person”, “family”, “HUD”, and “Secretary”, as used in this subpart A, shall have the meanings given these terms in 24 CFR part 5.
( b ) The terms “*first mortgage*”, “*hospital*”, “*maturity date*”, “*mortgage*”, “*mortgagee*”, and “*state*”, as used in this subpart A shall have the meaning given in the section of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701), as amended, under which the project mortgage is insured.
( c ) As used in this subpart A:
*Act* means the National Housing Act, (12 U.S.C. 1701) as amended.
*Commissioner* means the Federal Housing Commissioner.
*FHA* means the Federal Housing Administration.
*Insured mortgage* means a mortgage which has been insured by the endorsement of the credit instrument by the Commissioner, or the Commissioner's duly authorized representative.
*Project* means a property consisting of site, improvements and, where permitted, equipment meeting the provisions of the applicable section of the Act, other applicable statutes and regulations, and terms, conditions and standards established by the Commissioner.
[61 FR 14399, Apr. 1, 1996, as amended at 77 FR 5675, Feb. 3, 2012]