alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORM OF STOCK OPTION GRANT (1989)



 Exhibit 10.5 
  
 NON-QUALIFIED 
 Stock Option 
  
 Granted Under Millipore Corporation

 1989 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors 
  
 Stock Option granted by Millipore Corporation a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) to
                     (the “Optionee”), pursuant to Millipore’s 1989 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the
“Plan”). 
  

	1.	Grant of Option 

  
 This certificate evidences the grant by the Company on
                             to the Optionee of an option to purchase, in whole or in part, on the
terms herein provided, a total of              shares of Common Stock of the Company (the “Shares”) at
$             per Share. The Final Exercise Date of this option (as that term is used in the Plan) is [date 10 years following date of grant stated above]. 
  
 This option is exercisable in the following installments prior to the Final
Exercise Date: 
  

	2.	Exercise of Option 

  
 Each election to exercise this option shall be in writing, signed by the Optionee or by the Optionee’s executor or administrator or the person or
persons to whom this option is transferred by will or the applicable laws of descent and distribution (the “Legal Representative”), and received by the Company at its principal office, accompanied by this certificate and payment in full as
provided in the Plan. The purchase price may be paid by delivery of cash, certified check, bank draft, money order, or other payment medium approved by the Company. In the event that this option is exercised by the Optionee’s Legal
Representative, the Company shall be under no obligation to deliver Shares hereunder unless and until the Company is satisfied as to the authority of the person or persons exercising this option. 








	3.	Non-Transferability of Option 

  
 This option is not transferable by the Optionee other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and is exercisable during the Optionee’s
lifetime only by the Optionee. 
  

	4.	Provision of the Plan 

  
 This option is subject to the provisions of the Plan. 
  

	5.	Special Provisions 

  
 This option is automatically subject to the “Special Exercise Period” provided under the Plan (without further consent of the Company) if the
optionee’s services as a director terminate due to retirement at age 72 or such other age as the Board of Directors may determine from time to time. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this option to be exercised under its corporate seal by its duly authorized officer. This option shall take effect as a sealed
instrument. 
  
 Please acknowledge receipt of this certificate by signing and
returning the enclosed copy of this letter to the attention of                     . 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	 MILLIPORE CORPORATION

	
	  


	 [name]

	 [title]

	  
  


	 Date



  
 Receipt and acceptance of the
foregoing is hereby acknowledged: 
  

	
	  
  


	[Name of Director]
	
	  


	Date
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2503 

To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds to provide military 

assistance to opposition forces in Syria. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2013 

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

on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds to provide 

military assistance to opposition forces in Syria. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) The opposition forces in Syria include the 

6 Al-Nusra Front, the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria, 

7 and other jihadist organizations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2503 IH

1 (2) The Al-Nusra Front has pledged allegiance 

2 to al-Qaeda and has been designated a terrorist or3 ganization by the United States. 

4 (3) United States law prohibits the transfer of 

5 funds or material assistance to known terrorist orga6 nizations. 

7 (4) The Obama Administration has not outlined 

8 a clear and definitive plan for United States involve9 ment in Syria. 

10 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO OPPO11 SITION FORCES IN SYRIA. 

12 No funds made available to the Department of De13 fense or any other United States Government department 

14 or agency may be obligated or expended to provide mili15 tary assistance to opposition forces in Syria. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Order filed October 4, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00464

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF K .C.L. AND M.W.L., CH ILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2

Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16

- FD

- 2240



### O R D E R
Appellant C.N.L.’s brief was due September 28, 2018

. No brief or motion for
extension of time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court by October 29, 2018 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
2006-0676.

#### In re Walker.

Ashtabula App. No. 2005-A-0067, 2006-Ohio-739. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. II.

Lundberg Stratton and O’Donnell, JJ., would also accept the appeal on all other Propositions of Law.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 273
Editorial Notes: 1. OMB control numbers relating to this part 273 are contained in § 271.8. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 273 appear at 84 FR 15093, Apr. 15, 2019.

§ 273.29 Transitional notice requirements. The State agency must issue a transitional notice (TN) to the household that includes the following information: ( a ) A statement informing the household that it will be receiving transitional benefits and the length of its transitional period;
( b ) A statement informing the household that it has the option of applying for recertification at any time during the transitional period. The household must be informed that if it does not apply for recertification during the transitional period, the State agency must, at the end of the transitional period, either reevaluate the household's SNAP case or require the household to undergo a recertification;
( c ) A statement that if the household returns to TANF, MOE, or SFCA program during its transitional benefit period, it will be asked to reapply for SNAP at the same time. However, if the household has been assigned a new certification period in accordance with § 273.27(c), the notice must inform the household that it must be recertified if it returns to TANF, MOE, or SFCA program during its transitional period;
( d ) A statement explaining any changes in the household's benefit amount due to the loss of TANF income, MOE income, or SFCA program income and/or changes in household circumstances learned from another State or Federal means-tested assistance program;
( e ) A statement informing the household that it is not required to report and provide verification for any changes in household circumstances until the deadline established in accordance with § 273.12(c)(3) or its recertification interview; and
( f ) A statement informing the household that the State agency will not act on changes that the household reports during the transitional period prior to the deadline specified in § 273.29(e) and that if the household experiences a decrease in income or an increase in expenses or household size prior to that deadline, the household should apply for recertification.
[75 FR 4953, Jan. 29, 2010, as amended at 82 FR 2044, Jan. 6, 2017]
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

129) IV-E-2 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:54 PM Sheet 129 of 242 
<?i0l

u%. 

P.2 

R-Qn-mXlL 

UZ — L-r-Olrif*'. 

SEP I I 1987 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Discussion With the National Transportation Safety 

Board Regarding EPA's Onboard Proposal 

Kathleen A. Steilen, Chemical Engineer ^a*AJLee/'n Ct. ^fceii^vj 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

The Record 

Glenn W. passavant, Senior Project Manager */> JL^^. LStandards Development and Sapport^Branch A \nc 

Chester J. France, Chief 

Standards Development an 

S

" ^ ' TCr-t-mmtASJOmrrmA; 

On August 25, 1987, I had a couple 

conversations with Dr. Merritt Birky of 

Transportation Safety Board concerning EPA's 

controlling refueling emissions. Dr. Birky has 

EPA's analysis of refueling emission controls 

general questions regarding this analysis. 

of telephone 

the National 

proposal for 

been studying 

and had some 

More specifically, Dr. Birky was interested in EPA's 

evaluation of fuel bladders as an alternative refueling control 

approach and an analysis of fuel tank-related fires. He wanted 

to know how far EPA's fuel bladder investigation has progressed 

and had some general concerns regarding possible bladder 

materials and designs. I explained to him that EPA's analysis 

of fuel bladders is only preliminary in nature and that we have 

not performed any actual testing of bladders to date. At his 

request, I gave him the names of two contacts from 3M with whom 

we have discussed potential bladder material and it's necessary 

properties. 

In addition, Dr. Birky had some questions on EPA's 

comparison of onboard and stage II refueling controls. One 

specific concern was the basis of EPA's assumption that onboard 

control systems are "maintenance-free." In response, I offered 

to send him copies of our onboard proposal and the major 

regulatory support documents which explain EPA's position 

entirely. At the close of our conversation, I told him to feel 

free to contact me if he had any further questions on our 

analysis and to write a letter to the docket for any comments 

or concerns regarding the proposal. 

cc: Docket A-87-11
#### § 33.8 Bulk container.

Bulk container means a container that contains a quantity of apples weighing more than 100 pounds.

[79 FR 18766, Apr. 4, 2014]
#### § 1780.43 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:02cr63-RH

vs. Case No. 4:05cv48-RH/WCS

MARK WILSON, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER TO RESPOND TO § 2255 MOTION

In response to the court's order to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, doc. 133,

Defendant filed an amended § 2255 motion. Doc. 134. 

The court has reviewed the second amended motion pursuant to the Rules

Governing § 2255 Proceedings, and the Government is directed to file an answer,

motion, or other response in compliance with § 2255 Rule 5(b). Defendant may reply to

the Government's arguments within the time set by this order, but is not required to do

so. § 2255 Rule 5(d). 

Case 4:02-cr-00063-RH-WCS Document 135 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case Nos. 4:02cr63-RH and 4:05cv48-RH/WCS

The court will review the record after the Government's arguments and

Defendant's reply (if any) are filed. If it does not appear that a hearing or additional

argument is warranted, then the undersigned will enter a report and recommendation for

disposition of the § 2255 motion; if an evidentiary hearing is warranted, counsel will be

appointed. § 2255 Rule 8(b) and (c).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall forward a copy of the amended § 2255 motion (doc. 134) to

the United States Attorney for this District, who shall file an answer, motion, or other

response to the motion no later than July 22, 2005. 

2. If review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for

the Government to review the PSR upon request.

3. Defendant shall file a reply, if desired, no later than August 22, 2005. 

DONE AND ORDERED on May 20, 2005.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:02-cr-00063-RH-WCS Document 135 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2389 

To require the Inspector General for Tax Administration to audit the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2013 

Mr. MEADOWS (for himself, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. JONES, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. SALMON, and 

Mr. YOHO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy 

and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, and House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the Inspector General for Tax Administration 

to audit the Internal Revenue Service. 

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 ‘‘IRS Verification Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2389 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUDIT OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE BY 

2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINIS3 TRATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Inspector General for Tax 

5 Administration shall audit the Internal Revenue Service 

6 for the period beginning January 1, 2010, and ending on 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. The audit shall be 

8 conducted in accordance with section 5(a) of the Inspector 

9 General Act of 1978 and shall include, but need not be 

10 limited to, a report on the items specified by paragraphs 

11 (1) through (13) (other than paragraph (10)) of such sec12 tion. 

13 (b) PROHIBITION ON EXPENDING FUNDS FOR PA14 TIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT UNTIL

15 AUDIT IS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS.—No amount made 

16 available for any program, project, or activity to carry out 

17 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or any 

18 amendment made by such Act may be obligated or ex19 pended after the date of the enactment of this Act until 

20 a report of the audit required by subsection (a) is sub21 mitted to the Congress. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                 SUBSIDIARIES OF GENERAL PARAMETRICS CORPORATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    Name                           Jurisdiction of Incorporation

         <S>                                                 <C>
         1.       Parametrics Limited                        Jamaica

         2.       General Parametrics                        California
                  International, Limited

         3.       General Parametrics                        England
                  U.K. Limited

         4.       General Parametrics of                     Canada
                  Canada, Limited

         5.       General Parametrics GmbH                   Germany
</TABLE>


                                      -30-
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPropfan Test Assessment (PTA)The objectives of the Propfan Test Assessment (PTA) Program were to validate in flight the structural integrity of large-scale propfan blades and to measure noise characteristics of the propfan in both near and far fields. All program objectives were met or exceeded, on schedule and under budget. A Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation GII aircraft was modified to provide a testbed for the 2.74m (9 ft) diameter Hamilton Standard SR-7 propfan which was driven by a 4475 kw (600 shp) turboshaft engine mounted on the left-hand wing of the aircraft. Flight research tests were performed for 20 combinations of speed and altitude within a flight envelope that extended to Mach numbers of 0.85 and altitudes of 12,192m (40,000 ft). Propfan blade stress, near-field noise on aircraft surfaces, and cabin noise were recorded. Primary variables were propfan power and tip speed, and the nacelle tilt angle. Extensive low altitude far-field noise tests were made to measure flyover and sideline noise and the lateral attenuation of noise. In coopertion with the FAA, tests were also made of flyover noise for the aircraft at 6100m (20,000 ft) and 10,668m (35,000 ft). A final series of tests were flown to evaluate an advanced cabin wall noise treatment that was produced under a separate program by NASA-Langley Research Center.Document ID19900002423Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLittle, B. H.*(Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. Marietta, GA, United States)*Poland, D. T.*(Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. Marietta, GA, United States)*Bartel, H. W.*(Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. Marietta, GA, United States)*Withers, C. C.*(Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. Marietta, GA, United States)*Brown, P. C.*(United Technologies Corp. Windsor Locks, CT., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1989Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-185138LG89ER0064NAS 1.26:185138Accession Number90N11739Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-24339PROJECT: RTOP 535-03-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900002423.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### The State ex rel. Brantley, Appellant, *v.*Ghee et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Brantley v. Ghee*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 521.]

(No. 97-2237

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*522
      *Gregory Brantley, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

Brantley asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of mandamus. For the following reasons, however, Brantley’s contentions lack merit.

As the court of appeals correctly held, at the time Brantley filed his motion, neither former Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-17 nor Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-31 required the APA to cancel the detainer. Former Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-17, as cited by Brantley, did not impose any duty to cancel detainers. Ohio Adm.Code 5120:1-1-31(E) authorizes the APA to choose to initiate revocation proceedings in lieu of canceling a detainer. Brantley conceded in his motion that he was ultimately convicted of the new criminal charges that were the basis for the detainer. The APA has no legal duty to hold a final parole revocation hearing for Brantley during the time he is incarcerated on new criminal charges. *State ex rel. Taylor v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.*(1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 121, 609 N.E.2d 546.

In addition, original actions for extraordinary relief like a writ of mandamus must be commenced by filing a complaint or petition rather than a motion. *State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 110, 111, 689 N.E.2d 564; *Myles v. Wyatt*(1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 191, 580 N.E.2d 1080, 1081. Brantley erroneously filed a motion rather than a complaint or petition.

Finally, contrary to Brantley’s claims, no additional discovery was necessary for the court of appeals to resolve appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. See *State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v.*Hancock *Cty. Bd. of Commrs.*(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 134, 136, 684 N.E.2d 1222, 1224 (“In order to be entitled to dismissal under Civ.R. 12[C], it must appear beyond doubt that relator can prove no set of facts warranting the requested relief, after construing all *523material factual allegations *in the complaint*and all reasonable inferences therefrom in relator’s favor.” [Emphasis added.]).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2219 

To reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act 

of 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2013 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation 

System Act of 2009. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF INTEGRATED COASTAL 

4 AND OCEAN OBSERVATION SYSTEM ACT OF 

5 2009. 

6 The Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation Sys7 tem Act of 2009 is amended by striking ‘‘are authorized 

8 to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for fiscal 

9 years 2009 through 2013 such sums as are necessary’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2219 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec2 retary of Commerce for each of fiscal years 2014 through 

3 2018 $29,600,000’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Tuan Ha-Ngoc,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to his knowledge on the date hereof: 

(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 results of operations of the Company. 

Date: November 5, 2010