alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Offer of Employment Letter



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

			
	Mr. Michael Sullivan	 	AVICENA
	15 Forest Street	 	228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Floor
	Sherborn, MA 01770	 	Palo Alto, CA 94301
		 	(415) 397-2880
		 	Fax: (415) 397-2898

 March 29, 2006 
 RE: Offer of Employment 
 Dear Michael: 
 I am pleased to extend this offer to have you join The Avicena Group, Incorporated, according to the following terms: 
  

			
	 Position:
	  	Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Acting
		
	 Reporting to:
	  	CEO, The Avicena Group, Inc.
		
	 Place of Employment:
	  	Cambridge, MA
		
	 Termination:
	  	Either party may terminate the contract, for any reason, with advance written notice of one month.
		
	 Salary and Benefits:
	  	Base Salary: Employee shall be paid a base salary of $90,000.00 subject to applicable federal, state, and local withholding.

 On or before your start date, or on your first day of employment, as a condition of your
employment with the Company, you will be required to sign the Company’s standard Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement. You represent that you have provided the Company with a copy of all agreements with any current or former employer
concerning restrictions on your right to (a) disclose confidential information, (b) compete with a current or former employer, and/or (c) solicit customers, potential customers and/or employees of a current or former employer. You
represent that you are not bound by any agreement that will prevent or impede you from performing any of the requirements of your position with the Company. 
 If you are agreeable to the above employment offer and conditions please sign and return no later than Friday, March 31, 2006, to my attention c/o The Avicena Group, 228 Hamilton Avenue, 3rd Floor, Palo Alto, CA
94301. 
  

					
	Yours sincerely,	  		 	Agreed to as of: 3/30/06
			
	 /s/ Nasser Menhall
 Nasser
Menhall
 Chairman of the Board
	  		 	 /s/ Michael Sullivan
 Michael
Sullivan
 Employee
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         277,200
<SECURITIES>                                   340,642
<RECEIVABLES>                                  436,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    374,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,595,030
<PP&E>                                         870,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                 427,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,439,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          472,317
<BONDS>                                        629,206
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,231
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,214,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,439,515
<SALES>                                      1,575,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,575,479
<CGS>                                          913,207
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  913,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               420,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                162,166
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,303
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,863
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,863
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41


</TABLE>
#### § 770.47 Purpose.

To promulgate regulations and procedures governing entry upon Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and to prevent the interruption of the functions and operations of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard by the presence of any unauthorized person within the boundaries of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
#### In the Matter of Robert R. Kaufman, Appellant, v Irving Anker, *852as Chancellor of the Board of Education of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Examiners of the Board of Education of the City of New York, dated September 26, 1976, which "denied” petitioner’s appeal with reference to his failure to pass an examination for a license as a teacher of English in day high schools, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 1, 1977, which granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the proceeding was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the motion to dismiss in accordance herewith. The applicable Statute of Limitations in this case is set forth in CPLR 217, which requires that a proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding on the petitioner. In a proceeding to review a determination of the board of examiners concerning the results of a teaching examination, it is established that the period of limitation begins to run when the petitioner *receives*a copy of the administrative determination *(Matter of Presti v Board of Examiners of Bd. of Educ.,*71 Misc 2d 232; *Matter of Munice v Board of Examiners of Bd. of Educ.,*31 NY2d 683). In this case the determination was dated September 27, 1976 and this proceeding was commenced on February 7, 1977. However, the record is silent as to the date upon which petitioner received a copy of the determination sought to be reviewed. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the motion to dismiss for the purposes of determining when petitioner received a copy of the determination dated September 27, 1976. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.
### §2421. Application for recognition of plant variety rights

(a) An application for a certificate of Plant Variety Protection may be filed by the owner of the variety sought to be protected. The application shall be made in writing to the Secretary, shall be signed by or on behalf of the applicant, and shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(b) An error as to the naming of the breeder, without deceptive intent, may be corrected at any time, in accordance with regulations established by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §51, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1548.)
### §511a. Declaration of purpose

Transactions in tobacco involving the sale thereof at auction as commonly conducted at auction markets are affected with a public interest; such transactions are carried on by tobacco producers generally and by persons engaged in the business of buying and selling tobacco in commerce; the classification of tobacco according to type, grade, and other characteristics affect the prices received therefor by producers; without uniform standards of classification and inspection the evaluation of tobacco is susceptible to speculation, manipulation, and control, and unreasonable fluctuations in prices and quality determinations occur which are detrimental to producers and persons handling tobacco in commerce; such fluctuations constitute a burden upon commerce and make the use of uniform standards of classification and inspection imperative for the protection of producers and others engaged in commerce and the public interest therein.

(Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 623, §2, 49 Stat. 731.)
#### § 651.24 Supplemental EAs and supplemental EISs.

As detailed in § 651.5(g) and in 40 CFR 1502.9(c), proposed actions may require review of existing NEPA documentation. If conditions warrant a supplemental document, these documents are processed in the same way as an original EA or EIS. No new scoping is required for a supplemental EIS filed within one year of the filing of the original ROD. If the review indicates no need for a supplement, that determination will be documented in a REC.
### §4605. Findings and issuance of order

After notice and opportunity for comment has been provided in accordance with section 4604(a) of this title, the Secretary shall issue an order, an amendment to an order, or a regulation under this chapter, if the Secretary finds, and specifies in the order, amendment, or regulation, that the issuance of the order, amendment, or regulation will assist in carrying out the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 98–590, §6, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3117; Pub. L. 105–185, title VI, §605(e), June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 589.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–185 amended section catchline and text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "After notice of and opportunity for a hearing has been provided in accordance with section 4604 of this title, the Secretary shall issue an order if the Secretary finds, and sets forth in such order, that, upon the evidence introduced at such hearing, the issuance of such order and all the terms and conditions thereof will assist in carrying out the purpose of this chapter."
From: Bill Sullivan To: Newton, Brittany (FAA) Cc: david oliver Subject: Docket No. FAA-2015-3813 Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:15:08 PM

Ms. Newton,

I want to first thank you, I was losing hope as it has been almost a year. Thank you!

The following information is provided per your request:

· Describe the aircraft make(s): DJI

· Model(s): Phantom 3 Professional

· Type(s)(i.e., fixed‐wing, rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the proposed UAS operation: Quad Copter, Four Electric Rotors

· The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload):

o Weight: 1280 grams (~ 3 lbs)

o Max Ascent Speed: 5 m/s (~ 11 mph)

o Max Descent Speed: 3 m/s (~ 6 mph)

o Max Speed: 16 m/s (~ 36 mph)

o Max Operating Height: 120 m (393 feet)

o More below:Please let me know if this is sufficient to answer your questions and to further process my exemption.

My partner and I have two requests in, obviously this is one of them. The other is docket # FAA

2015

- 3812 both filed on the same day. The information provide per your request is identical information for the second request.

I want to thank you again!!

Kindest regards,

William Sullivan 404.790.4451

-----Forwarded Message----- From: Brittany.Newton@faa.gov Sent: May 31, 2016 12:07 PM To: billsul@mindspring.com Subject: Missing Aircraft

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This email is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 3813). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed‐wing, rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please respond to this email at your earliest convenience.Thank you, Brittany Newton
#### WARD, Respondent, v. HANNES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 17, 1905.)

Action by Robert Ward, Jr., by his guardian ad litem, against Lazarus Hannes. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Percy M. Jackson, Respondent, v. Board of Education of Watertown et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which established accident and causal relation in a heart case. The claimant, a janitor and custodian of the employer Board of Education, while operating a gasoline driven snow plow on November 30, 1955, suffered chest pains. He went to the school where a doctor was called and diagnosed his condition as *acute*coronary occlusion with myocardial infarction and generalized arteriosclerosis. The employer’s report of injury, dated December 12, stated that “ Exertion brought on heart attack ”. It was established that the wet snow which fell averaged from six to eight inches in depth. The claimant testified he went to work early—6 o’clock — because of the storm. The snow plow, weighing 610 pounds, was hand controlled and the operator worked behind it and controlled the steering and its progress by a handle. It required effort when turning it around at the end of the parking lot. While this was part of the regular work of the claimant governed, of course, by the amount of snowfall, there was evidence from which the board could find that the exertion on this particular occasion was such as to cause and precipitate the heart attack. The medical testimony amply sustained the finding not only by claimant’s doctor but by one of the appellants who stated that in his opinion there was a relationship between the incident on November 30 and the coronary occlusion. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to Workmen’s Compensation Board.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-59100, 333-69389, 333-72622, 333-72624 and 333-120485) of Handleman Company of our report dated June 29, 2007, except for the effects of discontinued operations discussed in Note 3 and the change inthe composition of reportable segments discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements, as to which the date is August 11, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this form10-K. 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Detroit, Michigan

August 11, 2008
### §2033. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–171, title IV, §4124(b), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 326

Section, Pub. L. 88–525, §24, as added Pub. L. 104–127, title IV, §401(g), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1027, related to payments by the Secretary to the Territory of American Samoa for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 to finance expenditures for nutrition assistance program extended under section 1469d(c) of title 48.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective May 13, 2002 and applicable beginning on Oct. 1, 2002, see section 4124(c), (d) of Pub. L. 107–171, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment note under section 2028 of this title.
No. 763.

#### Pennsylvania Railroad Company *v.*Edwin Dyason, Master of the Steamship “Welbeck Hall,” etc.

March 29, 1920.

*Mr. Frederic D. McKenney*and *Mr. Shirley Carter*for petitioner.

*Mr. James K. Symmers*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Nationalparks of North Dakota visitor guide : the official newspaper of TheodoreRoosevelt National Park, Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, andKnife River Indian Villages National Historic Site**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.21/2:N 81 D/
Item Number:0650-A-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000988955
 
May 29, 2018
#### Anthony Conte *v.*Dwan Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., et al.

*Allan S. Mall, George W. Billings III*and *Edward M. Sheehy,*in support of the motion.

Submitted October 2

decided October 24, 1974

The motion by all parties in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford to “Proceed Under New Rules” having been rendered moot by the adoption of the amendments to the rules of practice, effective October 15, 1974, is dismissed.
#### Charlene Benton *v.*Edwin Benton

*William F. Gallagher,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Nicholas Triffin,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 1

decided October 1, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.
### §428. Identification of new entrants into the Federal marketplace

The head of each executive agency shall conduct market research on an ongoing basis to identify effectively the capabilities, including the capabilities of small businesses and new entrants into Federal contracting, that are available in the marketplace for meeting the requirements of the executive agency in furtherance of defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. The head of the executive agency shall, to the maximum extent practicable, take advantage of commercially available market research methods, including use of commercial databases, to carry out the research.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §858, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2238.)
#### Association for the Preservation of Freedom of Choice, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. New York Post Corporation, Respondent.

Order, entered on May 4, 1962, dismissing this action as against the plaintiff corporation, and the order entered June 25, 1962, denying motion for renewal on additional affidavits and exhibits, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. The appeals by the individual plaintiff from such orders are dismissed, with costs inasmuch as he is not a party to the alleged cause of action as pleaded by the plaintiff corporation. It is clear that the plaintiff corporation does not have a cause of action against the defendant to recover for the alleged libelous statement concerning the plaintiff Swan, who allegedly “ headed ” a *“*group ” seeking incorporation. While it is alleged that the plaintiff corporation is the successor to and has succeeded to the rights of this group which it is alleged was an unincorporated association, it does not appear that the group was possessed of a cause of action for the alleged libel of its head, there being no allegation of special damages. (See *Adirondack Record*v. Lawrence, 202 App. Div. 251, and eases cited.) Nor does the plaintiff make any showing to support a cause of action directly accruing in favor of the plaintiff corporation for the alleged libel. The publication thereof occurred about three months prior to its incorporation and, thus, it did not in any way refer to the plaintiff corporation or any of its officers. In any event, there is no factual showing that such corporation was in any way libeled or damaged thereby. Plaintiff corporation does not show any issue of fact entitling it to a trial. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Boston/New York OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Washington/Philadelphia OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge//Investigation, Atlanta OIG Region ◄▬▬ 

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Chicago OIG Region 

Special Agent in Charge/Investigation, Long Beach OIG Office 

FROM: Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

SUBJECT: Redelegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation from the Inspector General, Delegation 

Control Number EF/EFI/157, certified July 23, 2004, and subject to the reservations 

noted below, I hereby redelegate to you, anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, or 

your successor in function, the authority under Sections 4 (a) (1), 6 (a) (2), and 7 (a) of 

the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to open investigative cases within your 

respective geographic areas of responsibility.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

The following authorities are not delegated:

A. The authority to open cases which involve allegations of misconduct by present 

employees of the Department, or allegations of misconduct by public officials

elected to federal or state-wide office;

B. The authority to open cases which involve allegations of misconduct by Office of 

Inspector General employees; and 

C. The authority to sign Advice of Investigation forms.
Page 2 - Redelegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

III. REDELEGATION

No further redelegation is authorized.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal Delegation 

Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this authority. I hereby ratify 

actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.

_____________/s/______________ 

 William D. Hamel

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 7/10/2009

Certified Date: 7/17/2009

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EFI/EFD4I/184
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41213 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TERRANCE LAMAR WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-Cr-9-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Terrance Lamar Williams pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Williams argues on appeal that the Government breached his plea agreement by failing to move for a downward departure at sentencing pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K.1.1. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no breach of the plea agreement. United States v. Cerverizzo , 74No. - 2 - F.3d 629, 632 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.