alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w2






EXHIBIT 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

COOPER INDUSTRIES, LTD.

DIRECTORS’ DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

(November 4, 2008 Restatement)



WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Cooper Industries, Ltd. Amended and Restated Directors’
Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and



WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors has approved amending the Plan to eliminate income
deferrals under the Plan;



RESOLVED, effective as of February 9, 2009, the Plan is hereby amended to add Section 3.4 to the
Plan as follows:





	 	3.4	 	Termination of Deferral Elections
	 
	 	 	 	Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan, no election to defer Fees
under this Article III may be made by any Participant with respect to any Fees
that, in the absence of any such election, would otherwise be payable after
January 2, 2009.





COOPER INDUSTRIES, LTD.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ James P. Williams
 

James P. Williams
	 	 
	 

	 	Senior Vice President	 	 
	 

	 	Human Resources
§ 3430.1108 Priorities. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, in awarding grants under this subpart, NIFA will give priority to projects that: ( 1 ) Maximize the share of funds used for direct incentives to participants;
( 2 ) Use direct-to-consumer sales marketing;
( 3 ) Demonstrate a track record of designing and implementing successful nutrition incentive programs that connect low-income consumers and agricultural producers;
( 4 ) Provide locally or regionally produced fruits and vegetables;
( 5 ) Are located in underserved communities; or
( 6 ) Address other criteria as established by NIFA and included in the requests for applications.
( b ) *Exception.* The priorities in paragraph (a) of this section that are given by NIFA will depend on the project type identified in § 3430.1104. Applicants should refer to the requests for applications to determine which priorities will be given to which project types.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70288-70289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28932]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCAD06000-L14300000-ET0000; CACA 43949]


Notice of Proposed Withdrawal, Transfer of Jurisdiction, and 
Notice of Public Meeting; California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management published in the Federal 
Register of December 31, 2003, a notice which contained an erroneous 
legal description.

DATES: Effective on November 17, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz Easley, 916-978-4673.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In notice document 03-32225, on page 75628 
in

[[Page 70289]]

the issue of Wednesday, December 31, 2003, make the following 
correction:
    On page 75628 in the second column, contained in the legal 
description for T. 17 S., R. 5 E., ``Sec. 25, W\1/2\ '' is corrected to 
read ``Sec. 25, E\1/2\ ''.

    Dated: November 10, 2010.
Karla D. Norris,
Associate Deputy State Director, Natural Resources (CA-930).
[FR Doc. 2010-28932 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28953]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 13, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Bitterroot Holding Company, Lolo, Montana, to retain shares of 
West One Bank, Kalispell, Montana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 12, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-28953 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
V 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2608 

For the relief of Flavia Maboloc Cahoon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2013 

Mrs. DAVIS of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Flavia Maboloc Cahoon. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR FLAVIA 

4 MABOLOC CAHOON. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201, and section 245(d), of the Immi7 gration and Nationality Act, Flavia Maboloc Cahoon shall 

8 be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjust9 ment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 

10 permanent residence upon filing an application for 

11 issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2608 IH

1 Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resi2 dent. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—Notwithstanding 

4 subsection (d) of section 245 of the Immigration and Na5 tionality Act, if Flavia Maboloc Cahoon enters the United 

6 States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c) 

7 of this Act, she shall be considered to have entered and 

8 remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligi9 ble for adjustment of status under such section 245 as 

10 of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap13 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica14 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

15 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

16 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

17 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res18 idence to Flavia Maboloc Cahoon, the Secretary of State 

19 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 

20 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 

21 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

22 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

23 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the 

24 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2608 IH

1 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

2 202(e) of such Act. 

3 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

4 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

5 parents, brothers, and sisters of Flavia Maboloc Cahoon 

6 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 

7 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na8 tionality Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2012

- NM

- 12 7

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 16, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51420 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RODRIGO FLORES-LUEVANO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-335-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rodrigo Flores-Luevano (Flores) appeals the 41-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation. Flores argues that his sentence is unreasonable and greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He does not challenge the calculation of his guidelines sentencing range. A sentence, such as Flores’s, “within a properly calculated Guideline range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).No. 05-51420 -2- We note that, at sentencing, the district court specifically referenced the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which sets out the sentencing goals found in § 3553(a). The district court’s written statement of reasons also stated that the district court had considered the factors found in § 3553(a). We conclude that Flores has failed to demonstrate that his properly calculated guidelines sentence was unreasonable. See Alonzo , 435 F.3d at 554; United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Flores also challenges 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Flores’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Flores contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Flores properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
Attachment 007 – TS1201UC – USE

1 page 

# sanitized
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ NXP USA, INC., NXP B.V., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

IMPINJ, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________
2024

- 1121

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in No. 2:20

- cv

- 01503

- JHC
, Judge John H. Chun.

______________________ O R D E R The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). Case: 24-1121 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 03/18/2024NXP USA, I NC

. V

. I MPINJ , I NC

. 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 18, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 18, 2024 Case: 24-1121 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 03/18/2024
#### § 3430.31 Guiding principles.

The guiding principle for Federal assistance application review and evaluation is to ensure that each proposal is treated in a consistent and fair manner regardless of regional and institutional affiliation. After the evaluation process by the review panel, NIFA, through the program officer, ensures that applicants receive appropriate feedback and comments on their proposals, and processes the awards in as timely a manner as possible.
# L_2021361EN.01005101.xml

| 12.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 361/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 361/51

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1799

of 11 October 2021

amending Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 15 October 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 (1) concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 15 October 2018, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 (1) concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons.

| (2) | Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 applies until 16 October 2021. On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures set out therein should be extended until 16 October 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 applies until 16 October 2021. On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures set out therein should be extended until 16 October 2022.

| (3) | Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 8 of Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 8

This Decision shall apply until 16 October 2022. This Decision shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 11 October 2021.

For the Council

The President

J. PODGORŠEK

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1544 of 15 October 2018 concerning restrictive measures against the proliferation and use of chemical weapons (OJ L 259, 16.10.2018, p. 25).

1

---
#### Pauline Sumereau, Respondent, v Eugene Sumereau, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on December 5, 1979, which granted plaintiff-respondent’s motion for a protective order vacating defendant-appellant’s notice to examine plaintiff-respondent’s finances, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the protective order to the extent of permitting an examination limited to the issues raised by defendant-appellant’s counterclaim, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff-respondent wife commenced this action for a divorce but did not request support or alimony. Defendant-appellant husband counterclaimed seeking to impress a constructive trust against assets in his wife’s name, alleging he delivered large sums of money and property to her in the course of their mutual and joint business activities, and that these sums were to be used solely for their common benefit. He seeks the transfer to himself of an equal share of all property he so transferred to her and of accumulations thereupon. Upon serving his verified answer, the husband also served a notice to take deposition regarding the wife’s finances during the marriage. The wife then sought and was granted a protective order vacating the notice on the basis of the holding in *Brenner v Brenner*(53 AD2d 831). In that case, we barred compulsory financial disclosure pursuant to section 250 of the Domestic Relations Law in a divorce action, when alimony or support was not in issue, reasoning that no relevant purpose would be served by granting *565disclosure under these circumstances. Such is not the case here. The financial disclosure sought by the husband is not requested pursuant to section 250 of the Domestic Relations Law, but under CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) as "material and necessary” to proving his counterclaim. The husband points out that he would be able to obtain the examination he seeks if the counterclaim herein were to be brought in a separate action. He should be able to proceed in a like manner in this case. The notice to examine was framed in general terms, however, and not specifically limited to the issues raised in his counterclaim. Our decision provides this limitation. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Lupiano and Bloom, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMI CLAIRE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv20-MW/MAF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING EN BANC REHEARING OF LANGE

Two weeks after this Court ruled on the pending cross-motions for summary 

judgment, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the panel opinion on which this Court relied 

and granted a petition for rehearing en banc. See Lange v. Houston Cnty., 110 F. 4th 

1254 (11th Cir. 2024). Subsequently, this Court ordered the parties to brief, among 

other things, the effect the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to vacate the Lange panel 

opinion pending rehearing en banc has on Plaintiffs’ remaining Title VII claims 

moving forward. ECF No. 179. This Court has now considered, without hearing, the 

parties’ supplemental briefing, ECF Nos. 182, 183, and 186. 

This Court recognizes it has taken years to get this case to trial. However, 

judicial economy demands that this Court stay this action pending resolution of the

en banc rehearing in Lange. The panel opinion this Court relied upon in ruling on 

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 187 Filed 10/23/24 Page 1 of 2
2

the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment is nearly on all fours with the facts 

of this case. As Defendant DMS persuasively argues, the eventual en banc holding 

in Lange will be controlling in this case. If the Eleventh Circuit reaches a decision 

contrary to the opinion expressed in the panel opinion, this Court’s analysis at 

summary judgment will need to be revisited. 

Not only could it potentially be a waste of this Court’s time and the parties’ 

efforts to prepare for a trial in this case, but, more importantly, it could be a waste 

of the public’s time and money. This Court is not going to inconvenience members 

of the public and call them in for jury duty, forcing them to give up their time and 

pay in exchange for the nominal compensation this Court provides, when the 

ultimate outcome could be reversed in light of the en banc decision in Lange. No 

matter the ultimate outcome in Lange, this Court is not going to gamble with the 

public’s time and money.

Accordingly, Defendants’ request to stay this action is GRANTED. This case 

is STAYED pending resolution of the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc rehearing in 

Lange. 

SO ORDERED on October 23, 2024.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 187 Filed 10/23/24 Page 2 of 2
#### § 301.80-9 Movement of witchweed.

Regulations requiring a permit for, and otherwise governing the movement of witchweed in interstate or foreign commerce are contained in the Federal plant pest regulations in part 330 of this chapter. Applications for permits for the movement of the pest may be made to the Deputy Administrator.

[35 FR 10553, June 30, 1970, as amended at 36 FR 24917, Dec. 24, 1971]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:89cr4013-WS

THEODORE COCKRAN,

Defendant.

 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the court is the defendant's motion for reconsideration. Doc. 457. 

For the third time, the defendant asks the court to reconsider an order, entered

January 24, 2012, later affirmed on appeal, denying the defendant's request for a

reduction in sentence based on Amendment 750. See Docs. 441, 442, 451, 454. 

The court has reviewed the defendant's most recent motion for

reconsideration but—again—finds nothing therein to change the court's decision

docketed January 24, 2012. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The defendant's motion (doc. 457) for reconsideration is DENIED.
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of December , 2013.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNTIED STATES CODE,


as
adopted pursuant to


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the annual report of Theragenics Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M.
Christine Jacobs, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates
and for the periods referred to in the Report.




Date:
March 15, 2010


/s/
      M. Christine JacobsM.
      Christine JacobsChief
      Executive Officer
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2024-0957 

L.T. Case No. 2013-CF-338-A

_____________________________

RAYTAURUS ARMSTRONG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County,

London M. Kite, Judge.

Raytaurus Armstrong, Madison, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

October 4, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sought relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.800(a). Appellant appealed the trial court’s summary 

dismissal of his 3.800 motion as successive. We reverse and 

remand with instructions for the postconviction court to either 

attach to its order Appellant’s three prior motions and their 

accompanying orders pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.800(a)(2), or to review and address the merits of the 

motion. Our reversal should not be construed or interpreted by the 

postconviction court as indicating that we have determined, on the 
2

merits, that Armstrong is entitled to relief on his motion. See Jones 

v. State, 198 So. 3d 920, 921 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

EDWARDS, C.J., and KILBANE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________