alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paristyle Novelty Company, appellee, v. National Trading Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,022.

Claim for damages for failure to deliver two orders of human hair cap nets. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Michael Feinberg, for appellant. Culver, Andrews *&*King, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Julia Norwich, * From the 244th District Court

 of Ector County

 Trial Court No. C-16-02-0106-CV.

Vs. No. 11-19-00339-CV * December 5, 2019

Jack N. Mousa, Ltd., Donald S. Belt, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

and Permian Hospitality Group, LLC, (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

 Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

 sitting by assignment) 

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has considered Jack N. Mousa, Ltd., Donald S. Belt, and 

Permian Hospitality Group, LLC’s motion to dismiss their cross-appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the cross-appeal is dismissed. The appeal filed by Julia Norwich

remains active. The costs incurred by reason of the cross-appeal are taxed against 

Jack N. Mousa, Ltd., Donald S. Belt, and Permian Hospitality Group, LLC.
### §5108. Monitoring and oversight

The Secretary shall conduct monitoring to ensure that each State that receives a grant under section 5106a of this title is in compliance with the requirements of section 5106a(b) of this title, which—

(1) shall—

(A) be in addition to the review of the State plan upon its submission under section 5106a(b)(1)(A) of this title; and

(B) include monitoring of State policies and procedures required under clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 5106a(b)(2)(B) of this title; and

(2) may include—

(A) a comparison of activities carried out by the State to comply with the requirements of section 5106a(b) of this title with the State plan most recently approved under section 629b of this title;

(B) a review of information available on the website of the State relating to its compliance with the requirements of section 5106a(b) of this title;

(C) site visits, as may be necessary to carry out such monitoring; and

(D) a review of information available in the State's Annual Progress and Services Report most recently submitted under section 1357.16 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations).

(Pub. L. 93–247, title I, §114, as added Pub. L. 114–198, title V, §503(d)(1), July 22, 2016, 130 Stat. 730.)
Second Amendment to Executive Change of Control Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.5

 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT, dated November 4, 2010, is by and between CIRCOR, Inc., a
Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), and John F. Kober III (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company
and the Executive entered into an executive change in control agreement made as of September 16, 2005, as amended on December 23, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to increase the benefits to which the Executive may become entitled to upon a Change in Control (as defined
in the Agreement). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive, each intending to be legally bound hereby, do mutually
covenant and agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “one
(1) times” with the following: 
 “two (2) times” 

2. Section 3(a)(iv) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “one (1) year” with the following:

 “two (2) years” 
 3. The Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect as to all other provisions under said Agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  


			
	CIRCOR, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ A. William Higgins

	Name:	 	A. William Higgins
	Title:	 	Chairman, President & CEO
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ John F. Kober III

	John F. Kober III
### §4123. Advance payments

Any payments under this chapter may be made (after necessary adjustment on account of previously made underpayments or overpayments) in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments and on such conditions, as the Administrator may determine.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title XIII, §1372, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 589; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, §451(d)(1)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1229; Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title II, §100238(b)(1), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 958.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original a reference to "this title" meaning title XIII of Pub. L. 90–448, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 572, known as the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–141 substituted "Administrator" for "Director".

1983—Pub. L. 98–181 substituted "Director" for "Secretary".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 120 days following Aug. 1, 1968, or such later date prescribed by the Secretary but in no event more than 180 days following Aug. 1, 1968, see section 1377 of Pub. L. 90–448, set out as a note under section 4001 of this title.

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
### §7257d. Expanded research by Secretary of Energy

#### (a) Detection and identification research

#### (1) In general

In conjunction with the working group under section 247d–6(a) of this title, the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration shall expand, enhance, and intensify research relevant to the rapid detection and identification of pathogens likely to be used in a bioterrorism attack or other agents that may cause a public health emergency.

#### (2) Authorized activities

Activities carried out under paragraph (1) may include—

(A) the improvement of methods for detecting biological agents or toxins of potential use in a biological attack and the testing of such methods under variable conditions;

(B) the improvement or pursuit of methods for testing, verifying, and calibrating new detection and surveillance tools and techniques; and

(C) carrying out other research activities in relevant areas.

#### (3) Report

Not later than 180 days after June 12, 2002, the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, a report setting forth the programs and projects that will be funded prior to the obligation of funds appropriated under subsection (b).

#### (b) Authorization

For the purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary in each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006.

(Pub. L. 107–188, title I, §152, June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 630.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2771 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,5 bis [(1,3 dioxobutyl) 

amino] benzene sulfonic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Mr. CLAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2,5 bis 

[(1,3 dioxobutyl) amino] benzene sulfonic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2,5 BIS [(1,3 DIOXOBUTYL) MINO] BENZENE SUL4 FONIC ACID. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.39 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 2,5 bis [(1,3 dioxobutyl) amino] benzene sulfonic acid) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

9 2009’’. 
2 

•HR 2771 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 711.111 Notice.

The agency shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this regulation and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the agency, and make such information available to them in such manner as the head of the agency finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and this regulation.
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY SINN,

Petitioner,

 v.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-4579 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On October 1, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2007 decision by the California

Board of Prison Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has filed an

answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-04579-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 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

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04579-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40738

Conference Calendar

__________________

L.W. MARTIN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN M. STENNER; HOOPER

D. JOHNSON

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-10

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing

appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). He maintains that his allegations

support a claim that the defendants delayed treatment of an eye

injury, and that this delay constituted deliberate indifference

to his serious medical condition resulting in permanent blindness

in his left eye. He also argues that John Stenner, the Unit
No. 95-40738

-2-

Health Administrator at the Retrieve Unit of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), controlled the way that Dr. Hooper D.

Johnson, a physician at the TDCJ Unit Health Authority, practiced

medicine. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm

for essentially the reasons given by the district court. Martin

v. Stenner, No. G-95-CV-10 (S.D. Tex. August 28, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60472 Summary Calendar

NATALIA ANDREA GARRO CANO , Petitioner

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A043 746 547

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Petitioner Natalia Andrea Garro Cano is a native and citizen of Colombia who was adjudicated inadmissible in 2008 because she committed a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) . In 2017, she filed an untimely motion to reopen her removal proceedings, claim ing that her attorney did not investigate or pursue relief from removal. The BIA concluded that Garro Cano had not established the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling and denied the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 13, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60472 Document: 00515074124 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2019N o. 18

- 60472

2 motion

. Garro Cano now petitions for review of the BIA’s decision. She also
raises her substantive claim s for relief from removal

. We review an immigra tion court’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for abuse of discretion. Lugo

- Resendez v. Lynch , 831 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016). The BIA “abuses its discretion when it issues a decision that is capricious, irrational, utterly without fou ndation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” Id . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Equitable tolling is warran ted only if the litigant establishes “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Id

. at 344 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Garro Can o asserts that her counsel’s failure to investigate and present

a defense to the CIMT charge and inadmi ssibility determination constituted an extraordinary circumstance meriting equitable tolling of the limitations period. However, she makes no attempt, o ther than a claim of ignorance of the error, to explain why she waited seven years to file her motion to reopen or what other efforts she took during that time to preserve her rights. Therefore , Garro Cano has not met her burden to demonstrate that equitable tolling applies , and the BIA’s conclusion that her motion to reopen was untimely was not an abuse of discretion. See id

. at 340, 344. The petition for review is DENIED. Case: 18-60472 Document: 00515074124 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2019
### §7178. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission fees and annual charges

#### (a) In general

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and beginning in fiscal year 1987 and in each fiscal year thereafter, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall, using the provisions of this section and authority provided by other laws, assess and collect fees and annual charges in any fiscal year in amounts equal to all of the costs incurred by the Commission in that fiscal year.

(2) The provisions of this section shall not affect the authority, requirements, exceptions, or limitations in sections 803(e) and 823a(e) of title 16.

#### (b) Basis for assessments

The fees or annual charges assessed shall be computed on the basis of methods that the Commission determines, by rule, to be fair and equitable.

#### (c) Estimates

The Commission may assess fees and charges under this section by making estimates based on data available to the Commission at the time of assessment.

#### (d) Time of payment

The Commission shall provide that the fees and charges assessed under this section shall be paid by the end of the fiscal year for which they were assessed.

#### (e) Adjustments

The Commission shall, after the completion of a fiscal year, make such adjustments in the assessments for such fiscal year as may be necessary to eliminate any overrecovery or underrecovery of its total costs, and any overcharging or undercharging of any person.

#### (f) Use of funds

All moneys received under this section shall be credited to the general fund of the Treasury.

#### (g) Waiver

The Commission may waive all or part of any fee or annual charge assessed under this section for good cause shown.

(Pub. L. 99–509, title III, §3401, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1890.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
§ 51.25 Name of applicant to be used in passport. ( a ) The passport shall be issued in the full name of the applicant, generally the name recorded in the evidence of nationality and identity.
( b ) The applicant must explain any material discrepancies between the name on the application and the name recorded in the evidence of nationality and identity. The name provided by the applicant on the application may be used if the applicant submits the documentary evidence prescribed by the Department.
( c ) A name change will be recognized for purposes of issuing a passport if the name change occurs in one of the following ways. ( 1 ) *Court order or decree.* An applicant whose name has been changed by court order or decree must submit with his or her application a copy of the order or decree. Acceptable types of court orders and decrees include but are not limited to: ( i ) A name change order;
( ii ) A divorce decree specifically declaring the return to a former name;
( 2 ) Certificate of naturalization issued in a new name.
( 3 ) *Marriage.* An applicant who has adopted a new name following marriage must present a copy of the marriage certificate.
( 4 ) *Operation of state law.* An applicant must present operative government-issued legal documentation declaring the name change or issued in the new name.
( 5 ) *Customary usage.* An applicant who has adopted a new name other than as prescribed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section must submit evidence of public and exclusive use of the adopted name for a long period of time, in general five years, as prescribed in guidance issued by the Department. The evidence must include three or more public documents, including one government-issued identification with photograph and other acceptable public documents prescribed by the Department.
Offer Letter - Craig Vachon



  
 Exhibit 10.1


 

 

 October 1, 2010 
 Craig Vachon 
 [Address] 
 RE: Promotion 
 Dear Craig: 
 Congratulations! This letter is to confirm our discussions and to formally document our agreement on your promotion to Chief Commercial Officer. In this new role you will continue to report to me and the
effective date of the change is August 20, 2010. 
 As we discussed, your base salary will remain $242,190.17 and you will continue on the
2010 Executive Incentive Plan at 60% target incentive. In addition to your compensation package, I am pleased to offer you an incentive for 2010 results as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 A cash bonus in the amount of $25,000 and a grant of 5000 RSU’s for the successful negotiation and close of 3 of 5 contracts in 2010. The
agreements must be negotiated and signed by December 31, 2010 with suitable terms accepted by Immersion and the partner. 


  

	 	•	 	 Payments will be made in 33.33% increments as results are achieved and will not exceed $25,000 and 5000 RSU’s. 



 

	 	•	 	 The strategic agreements must be between Immersion and 3 of 5 companies as agreed between you and Immersion. 



Craig, I’m confident that in your new role as Chief Commercial Officer you will help lead and drive significant business opportunities for
Immersion. Please be reminded that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this letter or any other agreement between us, your employment with us is on an “at will” basis, and may be terminated at any time, with or without cause and
with or without notice. 
 Please sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space indicated as your acceptance of the terms and return it to
Human Resources. Your signed acceptance will become our binding agreement with respect to the subject matter of this letter. 
 Sincerely,

  

	
	 /s/ Victor Viegas

	Victor Viegas
	President and Chief Executive Officer

 Agreed and Accepted

  

					
	 X /s/ Craig Vachon
	    	 1 Oct 10
	 	
	Craig Vachon	    	Date	 	








  
 EXHIBIT A

 The parties agree that the five companies subject to the incentive bonus set forth in the letter above include: LG, Samsung, HTC,
Nintendo and either Kong Hong or AAC. 
  

	
	 /s/ Victor Viegas

	Victor Viegas
	President and Chief Executive Officer

  

					
	 /s/ Craig Vachon
	    	 1 Oct 10
	 	
	Craig Vachon	    	Date