alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Employment Agreement ( "Amendment") is made and entered
into effective as of July __, 1998, by and between River Port Truck Stop, L.L.C.
("River Port"), OM Operating, L.L.C. ("OM") and Donald I. Williams ("Williams")
and constitutes a new agreement between River Port and Williams and an amendment
to the existing Employment Agreement (herein so called) dated April 15, 1998
between Williams and OM.

     1.   Williams hereby agrees to provide the same services to River Port as
he is providing to OM under the Employment Agreement, provided the amount of
time expended by him shall be split between River Port and OM based on the
number of truck stop video poker casinos operated by each of them from time to
time.

     2.   OM shall be responsible for paying a pro rata portion of all
compensation and benefits payable to Williams under the Employment Agreement,
based on the number of truck stop video poker casinos operated by each of them
from time to time, and OM shall pay the remainder of such compensation and
benefits.

     3.   River Port shall have all of the rights, duties and responsibilities
with respect to Williams and the truck stop video poker casino operated by River
Port as are set forth for OM in the Employment Agreement, and Williams shall
have all of the rights, duties and responsibilities with respect to River Port
and the truck stop video poker casino operated by River Port as are set forth
for OM in the Employment Agreement.

     Executed effective as of the date and year first above written.

                                    RIVER PORT TRUCK STOP, L.L.C.


                                    By:
                                       ---------------------------------
                                           George J. Akmon, Manager

                                    OM OPERATING, L.L.C.


                                    By:
                                       ---------------------------------
                                           George J. Akmon, Manager

                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Donald I. Williams, Individually

                                      -1-
§ 939.780 Surface mining permit applications—minimum requirements for reclamation and operations plan. ( a ) Part 780 of this chapter, *Surface Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan,* shall apply to any person who makes application to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
( b ) The applicant for a permit shall demonstrate compliance with Rhode Island air quality control laws (R.I. General Laws Section 23-23-1 *et seq.*) by obtaining an order of approval from the Director of the Department of Environmental Management for any facility with the potential to emit one ton per year or more of any air contaminant pursuant to R.I. General Laws Section 23-23-15.
#### § 580.71 What is the timetable for release of data and information?

We will release data and information that you or a third party submits and we retain according to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(a) If the data and information are not related to a deep stratigraphic test, we will release them to the public according to items (1), (2), and (3) in the following table:

| If you or a third party submits and we retain . . . | The Regional Director will disclose them to the public . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Geological data and information, | 10 years after issuing the permit. |
| (2) Geophysical data, | 50 years after you or a third party submit the data. |
| (3) Geophysical information, | 25 years after you or a third party submit the information. |
| (4) Data and information related to a deep stratigraphic test, | 25 years after you complete the test, unless the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section apply. |

(b) This paragraph applies if you are covered by paragraph (a)(4) of this section and a lease sale is held or a noncompetitive agreement is negotiated after you complete a test well. We will release the data and information related to the deep stratigraphic test at the earlier of the following times:

(1) Twenty-five years after you complete the test; or

(2) Sixty calendar days after we issue a lease, located partly or totally within 50 geographic miles (92.7 kilometers) of the test.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.705-11 Use of grounded messenger wires; ungrounded systems.

Solely for purposes of grounding ungrounded high-voltage power systems, grounded messenger wires used to suspend the cables of such systems may be used as a grounding medium.
### §300310. Local government

In this division, the term "local government" means a city, county, township, municipality, or borough, or any other general purpose political subdivision of any State.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3189.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 300310 | 16 U.S.C. 470w(3). | Pub. L. 89–665, title III, §301(3), as added Pub. L. 96–515, title V, §501, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3001. |

Section

The word "parish" is omitted as unnecessary because of 1 U.S.C. 2.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40927 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISRAEL HERRERA-MUNIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-02-CR-38-1

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Israel Herrera-Muniz (“Herrera”) was convicted after a guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He raises two issues on appeal, which we review for plain error. United States v. Ocana , 204 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. 2000). Herrera argues that the district court erred by applying U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) at his sentencing. He argues that hisNo. 02-40927 -2- prior felony conviction for possession of marijuana did not merit the eight-level adjustment provided in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for an aggravated felony, and that he should have received only the four-level adjustment provided in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) for “any other felony.” Herrera’s arguments regarding the definitions of “drug trafficking offense” and “aggravated felony” for purposes of the sentencing guidelines were recently rejected by this court in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero , 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002). Herrera’s argument that drug possession is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B) and 1326(b)(2) is foreclosed by our precedent in United States v. Rivera , 265 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 1146 (2002), and United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 1997). Thus, the district court did not plainly err in assessing an eight-level adjustment. Herrera also argues that, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional because they treat a prior conviction for an aggravated felony as a sentencing factor and not an element of the offense. This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this argument lacks merit.
AFFIRMED.
# Patent

## Title
Fixing binding strips to knitwear on linking machines

## Abstract

It is obvious that minor changes may be made in the form and construction of the invention without departing from the material spirit thereof. It is not, however, desired to confine the invention to the exact form herein shown and described, but it is desired to include all such as properly come within the scope claimed.

## Background
## Claims

desired to secure by Letters Patent is:

1. A method of forming a cable type saw, comprising the steps of: adjacent cylindrical portions, one portion having a large diameter and the other portion having a small diameter, diameter as the said large diameter, of the bore and the portion of small diameter, diameter, thereby causing a part of the small diameter portion to extend axially beyond the substance, body, portion, and body fixedly engages the cable.

2. A method of forming a cable type saw, comprising the steps of: adjacent cylindrical portions, one portion having a large diameter and the other portion having a small diameter, diameter as the said large diameter, of the bore and the portion of small diameter, diameter, thereby causing a part of the small diameter portion to extend axially beyond the substance, body, portion, beneath it fixedly engages the cable, large diameter, and the cable.

3. A method of forming a cable type saw, comprising the steps of: adjacent cylindrical portions, one portion having a large diameter and the other portion having a small diameter, diameter as the said large diameter, of the bore and the portion of the small diameter, diameter, thereby causing a part of the small diameter portion to extend axially beyond the substance, body, cable, and portion. .Iadd. 4. A method of forming a cable type saw, comprising the steps of: cylindrical portions, one portion having a large diameter and the other portion having a small diameter, diameter as the said large diameter, of the bore and the portion of small diameter, diameter, thereby causing a part of the small diameter portion to extend axially beyond the substance, abrasive body, fixedly engages the abrasive body and so that the main body fixedly engages the cable. .Iaddend.
#### § 56.4530 Exits.

Buildings or structures in which persons work shall have a sufficient number of exits to permit prompt escape in case of fire.
### SUBCHAPTER II—PROMOTION OF COMMERCIAL SPACE OPPORTUNITIES
# C_2023241EN.01000101.xml

| 7.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11163 – TRAFIGURA / MOTA-ENGIL / LAH / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 241/01)

On 27 June 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11163. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11163. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
§ 914.10 State regulatory program approval. The Secretary conditionally approved the Indiana regulatory program, as submitted on March 3, 1980, amended and clarified on June 4, 1980, resubmitted on September 28, 1981, and clarified on December 8, 1981, April 8, 1982, May 18-19, 1982 and May 26, 1982, effective July 29, 1982. He fully approved the Indiana program, as amended on April 19 and 28, 1983, effective August 19, 1983. Copies of the approved program are available at: ( a ) Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, R.R. 2, Box 129, Jasonville, IN 47438-9517.
( b ) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Indianapolis Field Office, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, Room 301, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1521.
[64 FR 20166, Apr. 26, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 55352, Sept. 14, 2004]
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**Corixa Corporation announces stockholder approval of merger with GlaxoSmithKline**

 

**SEATTLE, July 12, 2005 –**Corixa Corporation (NASDAQ: CRXA) today announced that its stockholders have adopted the merger agreement pursuant to which Corixa will be merged with and into a wholly owned subsidiary of SmithKline Beecham Corporation (d/b/a/ GlaxoSmithKline) and Corixa stockholders will receive $4.40 in cash for each share of common stock, $517.65 in cash for each share of Series A Preferred Stock and $172.01 for each share of Series B Preferred Stock. On April 29, 2005, Corixa and GlaxoSmithKline announced the signing of the merger agreement. 

Adoption of the merger agreement by Corixa’s stockholders satisfies one of the conditions to the completion of the transaction. Corixa anticipates that the merger will occur later today, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of all other closing conditions to the merger. About Corixa and Forward Looking Statements Corixa is a biopharmaceutical company developing vaccine adjuvants and immunology based products that manage human diseases. Corixa’s products are currently in multiple clinical development programs, including several that have advanced to and through late stage clinical trials. The company partners with numerous developers and marketers of pharmaceuticals, targeting products that are Powered by CorixaTM technology with the goal of making its potential products available to patients around the world. Corixa was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, with additional operationsin Hamilton, Montana. For more information, please visit Corixa's Web site at www.corixa.com. 

This press release contains forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the outcome and expected completion date of the proposed transaction between Corixa and GlaxoSmithKline. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management at the time the statements are made. They are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements. Factors that could affect Corixa's actual results include, but are not limited to, the risk that the acquisition by GSK does not close as a result of a failure to satisfy the closing conditions or otherwise and the "Factors Affecting Our Operating Results, Our Business and Our Stock Price," described in Corixa’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, copies of which areavailable from the company’s investor relations department. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release.

 

 

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

 

 

----
#### § 1665.8 Systems of records exempted from certain provisions of this act.

The SSS will not provide requesters information exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), (*e.g.,* the SSS will not reveal to the suspected violator the informant's name or other identifying information relating to the informant).

[89 FR 35006, May 1, 2024]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0186

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DONALD RAY SAGE,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 9, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 3 2022

06/03/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0186
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN F. FRIEDLANDER,

 Petitioner,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70918

ORDER*

Application to File Second or Successive

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Submitted October 8, 2013**

Seattle, Washington

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

John Friedlander was charged as an adult in federal district court for a

murder committed when he was sixteen. On January 20, 1988, he pleaded guilty to

Second Degree Murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), and Assault with Intent

FILED

OCT 15 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously finds this motion suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

-1-
to Commit Murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a). He was sentenced to life in

prison for the murder charge, and a concurrent term of twenty years for the assault

charge. In 1992, the district court denied his first pro se motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. Friedlander has now filed an application for leave to file a second or

successive motion under § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

We may authorize the filing of a second or successive motion under § 2255

if, among other things, the application makes a prima facie showing that the

motion would “contain . . . a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to

cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.”

28 U.S.C. § 2255; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(C). Friedlander contends that his sentence

is contrary to Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), which held that a

mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile homicide

offender violates the Eighth Amendment. We need not decide whether Miller

announced a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law because, even if it did,

Friedlander’s application would fail. 

Miller is inapplicable because Friedlander was not sentenced to life without

parole. Friedlander admits that he “has seen the parole board approximately 8

time[s] . . . and [has] a forth coming [sic] hearing in February of 2014.”

The application to file a second or successive motion under § 2255 is

-2-
DENIED.

-3-
#### PACKARD, Respondent, v. ELSOHN, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Samuel Packard against Levi Elsohn, impleaded, etc.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appéal granted, with $10 costs of motion, unless the appellant within 10 days files and serves the printed papers upon appeal from the order, in which event the motion is denied, without costs.
#### Tinamarie Svizzero et al., Respondents, v Suzanne M. Bagley et al., Appellants.

[833 NYS2d 236]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.H.O.), dated March 21, 2006, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ oral motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with one bill of costs, that branch of the plaintiffs’ oral motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against them on the issue of liability and for judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiffs is denied, and the jury verdict is reinstated.

The court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs because there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury based on the evidence presented at trial *(see Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 498-499 [1978]). Furthermore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A jury verdict in favor of the defendants should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiffs’ favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Reilly v Watson,*34 AD3d 778, 779 [2006]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 133 [1985]). Great deference must be accorded to the jury’s credibility determinations *(see Getreu v Plaxall Inc.,*261 AD2d 574 [1999]). A review of the evidence in this case demonstrates that a fair basis existed for the verdict in the defendants’ favor *(see Cucuzza v New York City Tr. Auth.,*251 AD2d 445 [1998]; *Bolourchi v J.F.K. Acquisition Group,*229 AD2d 370, 371 [1996]; *Varsi v Stoll,*161 AD2d 590, 591 [1990]). Accordingly, the verdict should not have been disturbed.

*624In light of the foregoing, the parties’ remaining contentions need not be addressed. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.
### §403k. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 403k, comprising section 11 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, act June 20, 1949, ch. 227, was editorially reclassified as section 3511 of this title.
### Leachate plumes in ground water from Babylon and Islip landfills, Long Island, New York

By: Grant E. KimmelOlin C. Braids

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1085

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Leachate plumes in ground water from Babylon and Islip landfills, Long Island, New York(1977)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.