alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MERCEDES

- BENZ USA, LLC
, Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY COFFMAN
, Appellee.

No. 4D 20

- 1431

[ June 24, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit,

Boward County ; Carol Lisa Phillips , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 18

- 9428

.

Brooks C. Rathet of Bromagen & Rathet, P.A., Jacksonville Beach , for appellant.

Jeanne M. Cremeens and Patrick J. Cremeens of Cremeens Law Group, PLLC, Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS
, M AY and D AMOORGIAN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### §784. Repealed. Pub. L. 85–56, title XXII, §2202(1), June 17, 1957, 71 Stat. 162

Section, R.S. §471; act July 3, 1930, ch. 863, §2, 46 Stat. 1016, required Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to perform those duties in execution of bounty-land laws as the President prescribed.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal by Pub. L. 85–56 effective Jan. 1, 1958.
EX-10.2


   

  Exhibit 10.2

   

  Amendment to 

  Employment Agreement 

   

  This Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into this 24th day of August 2022 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Samar Kamdar (the “Executive”) and BioTE Medical, LLC (the “Company”).

  Recitals

  A.  The Company and Executive have entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of July 25, 2022 (the “Employment Agreement”) with July 25, 2022 being Executive’s anticipated start date.  

  B.  Executive did not begin work on July 25, 2022 so the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect Executive’s actual start date as provided in this Amendment.

  Agreement

  The parties agree to the following:

  1.Amendment to Effective Date.  The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that Executive’s employment start date with the Company shall be August 24, 2022 and the Effective Date of the Employment Agreement is hereby revised from July 25, 2022 to August 24, 2022.


  2.No Other Amendments.  Except as modified or amended in this Amendment, no other term or provision of the Employment Agreement is amended or modified in any respect.  The Employment Agreement, and this Amendment, set forth the entire understanding between the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior oral discussions or written communications and agreements.  This Amendment cannot be modified or amended except in writing signed by Executive and an authorized officer of the Company.


  The parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement on the day and year first written above.

  BioTE Medical, LLC

   

   

  By: /s/ Terry S. Weber	

  Name: Terry S. Weber

  Title: Chief Executive Officer

   

  Executive:

   

   

  /s/ Samar Kamdar				

  Samar Kamdar
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Don De Leonardis, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,575.

Consolidated with No. 28,578 ante. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Per Curiam.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30112

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEE DELL NATION, JR., also known as Pop, also known as Doom,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:02-CR-30043-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Lee Dell Nation, Jr., federal prisoner # 11578-035, appeals the district

court’s imposition of a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),

based on the amendments to the Guideline governing cocaine base. Although

the district court reduced Nation’s sentence from 235 months to 188 months, at

the bottom of the newly applicable guidelines range, Nation argues that,

pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court had

the discretion to depart from the amended guidelines range. He further argues

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 17, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-30112 Document: 00511205745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
No. 10-30112

that 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) does not grant the Sentencing Commission authority to

bind the district court’s discretion in § 3582(c)(2) cases.

We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, and its interpretation of the Sentencing

Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). Booker is inapplicable to sentence

reductions under § 3582(c)(2), and a district court may not reduce a sentence

below the minimum provided in the amended guidelines range. Id. at 238.

Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-30112 Document: 00511205745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3131

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Healthy Start 

Initiative. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2005

Mr. UPTON (for himself and Mr. TOWNS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 

the Healthy Start Initiative.

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 ‘‘Healthy Start Reau5 thorization Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO HEALTHY START INITIATIVE. 

7 (a) CONSIDERATIONS IN MAKING GRANTS.—Section 

8 330H(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 254c–8(b)) is amended—
2

•HR 3131 IH 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENTS’’ and all 

2 that follows through ‘‘In making grants under sub3 section (a)’’ and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(b) CONSIDERATIONS IN MAKING GRANTS.—

5 ‘‘(1) REQUIREMENTS.—In making grants under 

6 subsection (a)’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following para8 graph: 

9 ‘‘(2) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.—In making 

10 grants under subsection (a), the Secretary shall take 

11 into consideration the following: 

12 ‘‘(A) Factors that contribute to infant 

13 mortality, such as low birthweight. 

14 ‘‘(B) The extent to which applicants for 

15 such grants facilitate—

16 ‘‘(i) a community-based approach to 

17 the delivery of services; and 

18 ‘‘(ii) a comprehensive approach to 

19 women’s health care to improve perinatal 

20 outcomes.’’. 

21 (b) OTHER GRANTS.—Section 330H of the Public 

22 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c–8) is amended—

23 (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3); 

24 and 

25 (2) by striking subsections (e) and (f). 
3

•HR 3131 IH 

1 (c) FUNDING.—Section 330H of the Public Health 

2 Service Act, as amended by subsection (b) of this section, 

3 is amended by adding at the end the following subsection: 

4 ‘‘(e) FUNDING.—

5 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

6 For the purpose of carrying out this section, there 

7 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 

8 be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2006 

9 through 2011. 

10 ‘‘(2) ALLOCATION.—

11 ‘‘(A) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.—Of the 

12 amounts appropriated under paragraph (1) for 

13 a fiscal year, the Secretary may reserve up to 

14 5 percent for coordination, dissemination, tech15 nical assistance, and data activities that are de16 termined by the Secretary to be appropriate for 

17 carrying out the program under this section. 

18 ‘‘(B) EVALUATION.—Of the amounts ap19 propriated under paragraph (1) for a fiscal 

20 year, the Secretary may reserve up to 1 percent 

21 for evaluations of projects carried out under 

22 subsection (a). Each such evaluation shall in23 clude a determination of whether such projects 

24 have been effective in reducing the disparity in 

25 health status between the general population 
4

•HR 3131 IH 

1 and individuals who are members of racial or 

2 ethnic minority groups.’’.

Æ
Case 3:09-cv-01067-BZ Document 26 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:09-cv-01067-BZ Document 26 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNIFRAX
CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH
31, 1997, AND THEIR CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             367
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,046)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,182
<PP&E>                                          65,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                (30,930)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,025
<BONDS>                                        126,500
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (53,523)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,407
<SALES>                                         22,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,028
<CGS>                                           11,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (33)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    36
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,162
<INCOME-TAX>                                       510
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                652
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.3


   

  Exhibit 10.3

   

   

   

   

  Mr. R. Scott Huennekens

   

   

  RE:  Interim President and Chief Executive Officer

   

  Dear Scott:

   

  	This letter agreement memorializes the oral agreement between you and Hyperfine, Inc. (the “Company”) regarding your appointment as Interim President and Chief Executive officer of the Company while the Company searches for a new President and Chief Executive Officer.  In connection with your service as Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, you will be compensated in the amount of $30,000 per month, effective as of July 1, 2022, until a new President and Chief Executive Officer is duly appointed and qualified.  In addition, in your capacity as a director of the Company, you will be entitled to an annual cash retainer fee of $50,000, an annual equity grant and the reimbursement of expenses for your service as a non-employee director in accordance with the Company’s Nonemployee Director Compensation Policy. 

   

  						Sincerely,

   

  						Hyperfine, Inc. 

   

  						/s/ Neela A. Paykel

  						By: Neela A. Paykel

  						Title:  General Counsel & Corporate Secretary 

   

  Acceptance:

   

   

  /s/ R. Scott Huennekens_____

  R. Scott Huennekens

  					 

  Date: 08 August 2022
#### Bertram J. Grigsby et al., appellants, v. Ernst G. K. Anderson, appellee.

Gen. No. 28,469.

Action for money paid as anticipated profit under contract for purchase of shares, by parties of the first part, on understanding, breached by defendant, that he would assist in financing deal. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William It. Fetzer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 2, 1923.

Theodore A. Kolb, for appellants. George W. Brown, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 886.106 Notices. ( a ) Within 10 days of receipt of each completed application by the HUD field office, the field office shall send to the chief executive officer of the unit of general local government in which the proposed assistance is to be provided, a notification in a form prescribed by HUD for purposes of compliance with Section 213 of the HCD Act.
( b ) If an application is approved, HUD shall send to the Owner a notice of application approval. If an application can be approved only on certain conditions, HUD shall notify the Owner of the conditions and specify a time limit by which those conditions must be met. If an application is disapproved, HUD shall so notify the Owner by letter indicating the reasons for disapproval.
[42 FR 5603, Jan. 28, 1977, as amended at 53 FR 3368, Feb. 5, 1988]
#### John W. O’Connor, appellee, v. City of Chicago et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 28,610.

Petition for mandamus. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis S. Wilson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Reversed with a finding of facts, following opinion in Firnhaber v. City of Chicago, p. 611, ante.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Francis X. Busch, Corporation Counsel, for appellants; Gilbert Giles Ogden, Assistant Corporation Counsel, and Cora B. Hirtzel, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel. A. D. Gash, for appellee.

Per Curiam.
Support Documents for 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) 

P-03-722 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 22
Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for 

PMN P-03-722 

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for 

PMN P-03-722 

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for 

PMN P-03-722 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 22
A-001 

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-03-722 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 22
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 22
A-002 

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-03-722 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 22
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 22
A-003 

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-03-722 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 22
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 22
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 22
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 21 of 22
EPA SANITIZED Page 22 of 22
Exhibit 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Forms S-8 (Reg. Nos. 333-143963, 333-143962, and 333-141537) of MISCOR Group, Ltd. and Subsidiaries of our report dated April 15, 2009, except for held-for-sale and discontinued operations financial statement reclassification adjustments
as described in Notes B and C, as to which the date is April 15, 2010,with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of MISCOR Group, Ltd. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of MISCOR Group, Ltd. and Subsidiaries.
 
 
 /s/ ASHER & COMPANY, Ltd.
 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 April 15, 2010
#### In the Matter of Richard Ancoshian, as Administrator of the Estate of Karnig Ancoshian, Deceased, Respondent. Vartan Ancoshian, Appellant.

Motion for an extension of time granted insofar as to extend the time for respondent-appellant to serve and file the record on appeal and appellant’s points to and including October 4, 1960, with notice of argument for the November 1960 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
§ 58.30 Environmental review process. ( a ) The environmental review process consists of all the actions that a responsible entity must take to determine compliance with this part. The environmental review process includes all the compliance actions needed for other activities and projects that are not assisted by HUD but are aggregated by the responsible entity in accordance with § 58.32.
( b ) The environmental review process should begin as soon as a recipient determines the projected use of HUD assistance.
1 Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Ngo, Dan (FAA) Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 1:48 PM To: 'Lindsey@Skylinet owerpainting.com' Subject: Petition for Exemption - FAA-2015-7697

Ms. Mandolesi,

Thank you for our call this afternoon. Per your request, your petition has been closed and you can operate in accordance with part 107, which went into effect on August 29, 2016.

Section 333 of Public Law 112-95, Special Rules for Cert ain Unmanned Aircraft Syst ems (UAS), provided the FAA authority to authorize certain UAS operations. This incremental step provided a pathway for safe and legal civil operations in the National Airspace System (NAS ) and was considered a bridge mechanism until the implementation of part 107.

Part 107 represents a new pathway to UAS operations, and provides additional flexibility compared to the Conditions and Limitations of Sectio n 333 exemptions that the FAA has b een granting to date. For example, rather than obtaining a part 61 airmen certificate, UAS operators may simply pass a knowledge test to obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate. I encourage you to review part 107 and our website below for more information. Study materials for the written kno wledge test can be found at http://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started /fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot

. For more information, please visit: http://www.faa.gov/uas/ or contact us via email at UAShelp@faa.gov or call 844-FLY-MY-UAS.

Regards,

Dan Ngo Office of Rulemaking, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division Federal Aviation Administration
### §390pp. Involuntary foreclosure

Neither the ownership limitations of this subchapter nor the ownership limitations of any other provision of Federal reclamation law shall apply to lands when the lands are acquired by involuntary foreclosure, or similar involuntary process of law, by bona fide conveyance in satisfaction of a debt (including, but not limited to, a mortgage, real estate contract, or deed of trust), by inheritance, or by devise: Provided, That such lands were eligible to receive irrigation water prior to such transfer of title or the mortgaged lands became ineligible to receive water after the mortgage is recorded but before it is acquired by involuntary foreclosure or similar involuntary process of law or by bona fide conveyance in satisfaction of mortgage: Provided further, That if, after acquisition, such lands are not qualified under Federal reclamation law, including this subchapter, they shall be furnished temporarily with an irrigation water supply for a period not exceeding five years from the effective date of such an acquisition, delivery of irrigation water thereafter ceasing until the transfer thereof to a landowner qualified under such laws: Provided further, That the provisions of section 390ee of this title shall be applicable separately to each acquisition under this section if the lands are otherwise subject to the provisions of section 390ee of this title.

(Pub. L. 97–293, title II, §216, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1270.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Federal reclamation law, referred to in text, is defined in section 390aa of this title.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2


                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 Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, BJ Mendenhall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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.

Date:  November   17, 2003                       /s/ BJ Mendenhall
                                                 --------------------------
                                                 BJ Mendenhall
                                                 Chief Financial Officer




                                       36
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.359 Housing programs: Rejection of units by applicants for tenancy. ( a ) An applicant for tenancy in a project for the elderly or persons with disabilities may reject a unit offered by a project owner if the unit is in close proximity to a dwelling unit in which an existing tenant of the project owns or keeps a common household pet. An applicant's rejection of a unit under this section shall not adversely affect his or her application for tenancy in the project, including (but not limited to) his or her position on the project waiting list or qualification for any tenant selection preference.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart C imposes a duty on project owners to provide alternate dwelling units to existing or prospective tenants because of the proximity of common household pets to a particular unit or the presence of such pets in the project.
#### *Dec*Airline Services, Inc., Respondent, v Tan Line Inc., Appellant.

—In an action, *inter alia,*on a contract, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 14, 1977, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the third and fourth counterclaims contained in its answer. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied (see *Board of Educ. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., 38*NY2d 397). Martuscello, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ,, concur.
### §422f. Proposals for projects previously authorized; waiver of requirements; approval; negotiation of contract

Any proposal with respect to the construction of a project which has theretofore been authorized for construction under the Federal reclamation laws shall be made in like manner as a proposal under section 422d of this title, but the Secretary may waive such requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 422d of this title as he finds to be duplicative of, or rendered unnecessary or impossible by, action already taken by the United States. Upon approval of any such proposal by the Secretary he may negotiate and execute a contract which conforms, as nearly as may be, to the provisions of section 422e of this title.

(Aug. 6, 1956, ch. 972, §6, 70 Stat. 1046.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal reclamation laws, referred to in text, are defined in section 422b of this title.