alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2

 


SECOND AMENDMENT


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT
(the “Second Amendment”) is dated as of April 1, 2017 (the “Effective Date”), by and between MRI Interventions,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, having its principal office located at 5 Musick, Irvine, California, 92618 (“MRI”),
and Kimble L. Jenkins (“Consultant”), and amends that certain Consulting Agreement, by and between MRI and the
Consultant, entered into on April 1, 2015, and amended on December 15, 2016 (the “Agreement”).


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, MRI and Consultant agree as follows:


1.       Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Agreement are deleted, in their entirety, and replaced with the following
subsections (a) and (b):


“(a)       Subject to the
following sentence, for Consulting Services requested by and provided to MRIC hereunder, MRIC will pay Consultant at the rate of
$30,000 per calendar month for the period commencing April 1, 2017 and ending May 31, 2017. Begining June 1, 2017, MRIC
will pay Consultant at the rate of one hundred and fifty five dollars ($155.00) per hour worked with a maximum daily rate of twelve
hundred forty dollars ($1,240.00).


(b)       Consultant
will not be paid separately for travel time incurred for the period commencing April 1, 2017 and ending May 31, 2017. Thereafter,
and notwithstanding paragraph (a) above: (i) for travel time, MRIC will pay Consultant at the rate of fifty dollars per hour, with
a maximum daily travel rate of four hundred dollars ($400.00); and (ii) for days that include both consulting and travel hours,
the aggregate daily rate will be capped at twelve hundred forty dollars ($1,240.00).”


2.       Capitalized
terms used herein, which are not otherwise defined, will have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


3.       Except
as expressly otherwise set forth herein, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement will remain unchanged and continue in
full force and effect.


4.       In
the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment and the Agreement, the
provisions of this Amendment will prevail. The execution and delivery of this Amendment by delivery of a facsimile or .pdf copy
bearing the facsimile or .pdf signature of a party hereto will constitute a valid and binding execution and delivery of this Amendment,
and such facsimile or .pdf copies will constitute enforceable original documents.


 


[signature page follows]



 

 



    	 	1	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.


 

 



	
        MRI Interventions, Inc.

         

         

        By:  /s/ Francis P. Grillo

         

        Name: Francis P. Grillo

        Title: Chief Executive Officer
	
        Consultant

         

         

        By:  /s/ Kimble L. Jenkins

         

        Name: Kimble L. Jenkins

         

         



 




 

 



    	 	2
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ CADDO SYSTEMS, INC., 511 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellees

v.

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant

- Appellant

______________________
2022

- 2043

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20

- cv

- 00245

- ADA

, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________ 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: 22-2043 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 08/04/2022C ADDO S YSTEMS , I NC

. V

. M ICROCHIP T ECHNOLOGY , I NC

. 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

August 4, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 4, 2022 Case: 22-2043 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 08/04/2022
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10541 Summary Calendar

__________________

LINDA S. SHAMMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NEIMAN-MARCUS/NEIMAN-MARCUS
COMPANY/THE NEIMAN MARCUS
GROUP, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas
(3:93-CV-636-D)

______________________________________________

July 26, 1996

Before KING, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appe llant Linda Shammas appeals a district court judgment

dismissing with prejudice her claims for sexual harassm ent and

retaliation under Title VII against appellee Neiman Marcus.

Shammas argues that th e district court clearly erred in finding

against her on the issues of quid pro quo discrimination, hostile2

environment sexual harassment, and retaliation.

With respect to Shammas's appeal from the adverse rulings on

quid pro quo and retaliation, we find the evidence was clearly

sufficient to support the district co urt's findings. In

particular, the district court did not credit Shammas's testimony

that Bullard gave Shammas a disciplinary warning because she told

him she would no longer endure the sexual harassment. Given that

much of the evidence indicated that Shammas was terminated for

insubordination, the district court did not clearly err in finding

that Shammas's disciplinary warning and subsequent termination were

not the result of her refusal to acquiesce in quid pro quo sexual

harassment or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity

under Title VII.

Shammas also asserts that the district court erred in finding

against her on her claim for hostile environment sexual harassment.

As much as some cases, and this case in particular, may tempt us to

substitute our findings for those of the district court, we adhere

to the doctrine that this type of substitution is improper when the

district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of

t he record viewed in its entirety. S ee Anderson v. Cit y of

Bessemer City, N.C. , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511,

84 L. Ed.2d 518 (1985). After carefully reviewing the record, we

cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding the

complained-of remarks were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to

establish Shammas's hostile environment sexual harassment claim.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

### ***************************** In the Matterof: 

## * MACH ONE AIR CHARTERS, INC. 

## * DocketNo. FAA-2015-0643 

## * Case No. 2014WP210018 

### * ALJ

- RAW ALD 

## * ***************************** NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OFATTORNEY COMES NOW, Complainant, by counsel, and hereby notices that attorney Lisa Toscano substitutes in for Glenn Brown as counsel for the Complainant in this matter.
Respectfully submitted, Naomi Tsuda Assistant ChiefCounsel For Enforcement By:~/~

Dated:Lisa Toscano, Attorney Enforcement Division, Western Tean1 email: Lisa.M.Toscano@faa.gov Telephone: (310) 725-7100 

### (main) (310) 725-7110 (direct) (310) 725-6816 (fax)

NOV 3C 2016DOCKETNO. FAA-2015-0643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that onthis date I have sentby a copy ofthe foregoing NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY by U.S. Certified Mail

- returnreceipt requested and by either facsimile transmission or electronic mail, as indicated, to the following: The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536 Steven L. Graff, Esq. Steven L. Graff, Inc. 43399 Calle DeVelardo Temecula, CA 92592 Email: aviationcounsel@aol.com I further certify that on this date Ihave served the original and one copy ofthe foregoing NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY by U.S. CertifiedMail- return receipt requested and facsimile, addressed as follows:

Dated: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building

- Suite 2Wl000 Fax: (202) 267-1293

NOV 

## cO2016
Antonia Garcia, Paralegal Specialist EnforcementDivision, Western Team Lawndale, CA

2
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA
- 2011
- 0476 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010
-NM
- 247
- AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.
Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:

**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
#### § 640.67 Laboratory tests.

Each unit of Source Plasma shall be tested for evidence of infection due to relevant transfusion-transmitted infections as required under § 610.40 of this chapter.

[66 FR 31165, June 11, 2001, as amended at 80 FR 29905, May 22, 2015]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 29, 2022

NO. 03

- 22

- 00347

- CV

Y. A. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFO RE CHIEF J USTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

CONCURRING OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on May 16, 2022

. Having reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the t rial court’s order

. Because appellant is indigent

and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7509 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7509

         To limit resettlement in certain States or localities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 29, 2024

 Mr. Tiffany (for himself, Mr. Gooden of Texas, Mr. Ogles, and Mr. Van 
    Orden) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To limit resettlement in certain States or localities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Community Assent for Refugee Entry 
Act'' or the ``CARE Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT.

    Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1522) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Limitation on Resettlement.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this section, for a fiscal year, the resettlement of any 
refugee may not be provided for--
            ``(1) in any State where the Governor of that State, or the 
        State legislature, has taken any action formally disapproving 
        of resettlement in that State; or
            ``(2) in any locality where the chief executive of that 
        locality's government, or the local legislature, has taken any 
        action formally disapproving of resettlement in that 
        locality.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 582.3021 Benzoic acid. ( a ) *Product.* Benzoic acid.
( b ) *Tolerance.* This substance is generally recognized as safe for use at a level not exceeding 0.1 percent in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 556.732 Tiamulin. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of tiamulin is 25 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerance for 8-alpha-hydroxymutilin (marker residue) is: ( 1 ) *Swine.* Liver (target tissue): 0.6 ppm.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 520.2455 and 558.612 of this chapter.
Exhibit 5

                     [Salvo, Russell and Fichter Letterhead]

                                January 17, 2000

Board of Directors
WorldWater Corp.
Pennington Business Park
55 Route 31 South
Pennington, New Jersey 08534

         Re:      WorldWater Corp. 1999 Incentive Stock Option Plan

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      This letter is delivered to you in  connection  with the actions taken and
proposed to be taken by WorldWater Corp., a Nevada  corporation  ("WorldWater"),
with  respect to the  WorldWater  Corp.  1999  Incentive  Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan"). As counsel to WorldWater,  we have reviewed the registration  statement
on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") to be filed by WorldWater on or about
January 20, 2000,  with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  to effect the
registration  of  2,000,000  shares  of  common  stock of  WorldWater  under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act") for issuance under the Plan.

      In this regard,  we have examined the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
of  WorldWater,  records of proceedings of the Board of Directors of WorldWater,
the Plan and such other  records and  documents  as we have deemed  necessary or
advisable in connection with the opinions set forth herein.

      In  addition,  we have  relied,  as to  certain  matters,  on  information
obtained  from  public  officials,  officers  of  WorldWater  and other  sources
believed by us to be reliable.

      Based upon our examination  and inquiries,  we are of the opinion that the
shares which constitute  original issuance securities will, when issued pursuant
to the terms and  conditions  of the Plans,  be validly  issued,  fully paid and
nonassessable.  The  foregoing  opinion  is  limited to the laws of the State of
Nevada  and we  express  no  opinion  as to the  effect of the laws of any other
jurisdiction.

      We hereby  consent  to the  filing of this  opinion  as an  exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                                  Very truly yours,

                                               /s/ Salvo, Russell and Fichter
                                               --------------------------------
                                                  Salvo, Russell and Fichter
§ 58.200 Purpose. ( a ) The purposes of disqualification are: ( 1 ) To permit the exclusion from consideration of completed studies that were conducted by a testing facility which has failed to comply with the requirements of the good laboratory practice regulations until it can be adequately demonstrated that such noncompliance did not occur during, or did not affect the validity or acceptability of data generated by, a particular study; and
( 2 ) To exclude from consideration all studies completed after the date of disqualification until the facility can satisfy the Commissioner that it will conduct studies in compliance with such regulations.
( b ) The determination that a nonclinical laboratory study may not be considered in support of an application for a research or marketing permit does not, however, relieve the applicant for such a permit of any obligation under any other applicable regulation to submit the results of the study to the Food and Drug Administration.
§ 582.1077 Potassium acid tartrate. ( a ) *Product.* Potassium acid tartrate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 556.510 Penicillin. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for penicillin are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Edible tissues (excluding milk): 0.05 ppm.
( ii ) Milk: Zero.
( 2 ) *Chickens.* Edible tissues: Zero.
( 3 ) *Pheasants and quail.* Edible tissues: Zero.
( 4 ) *Sheep and swine.* Edible tissues: Zero.
( 5 ) *Turkeys.* Edible tissues (excluding eggs): 0.01 ppm.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 520.1696a, 522.1696a, 522.1696b, 526.1696, 526.1697, and 526.1698 of this chapter.
[84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 18121, Apr. 1, 2020; 86 FR 13188, Mar. 8, 2021]
§ 556.38 Amoxicillin. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerance for amoxicillin is: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* Edible tissues: 0.01 ppm.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 520.88d, 520.88e, 522.88, and 526.88 of this chapter.
[84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019, as amended at 86 FR 13188, Mar. 8, 2021]
----------

                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                   ----------

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                                   ----------

         Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 28, 2001

                     First India Diversified Holdings, Inc.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                                    New York
                 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)

       000-29193                                          06-1551283
(Commission File Number)                       (IRS Employer Identification No.)

                  257-10 Union Turnpike, Floral Park, NY 11004
               (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

                                  888-238-6400
               Registrant's telephone number, including area code:

 ................................................................................
         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)

<PAGE>

Item 4. Changes in Registrant's Certifying Accountant.

      On May 1,  2001 the  registrant  engaged  Aaron  Stein as its  independent
certified public accountant replacing Gregory E. Lazicky P.C.

      (i)   the former accountant was dismissed on May 1, 2001;

      (ii)  the principal accountant's report on the financial statements of the
            registrant  for  either  of the last two years  did not  contain  an
            adverse opinion and was not qualified or modified as to uncertainty,
            audit scope, or accounting principles;

      (iii) the decision to change  accountants  was  recommended or approved by
            the Board of Directors; and

      (iv)  during  the  registrant's  two  most  recent  fiscal  years  and any
            subsequent  interim period  preceding  such dismissal  there were no
            disagreements with the former accountant on any matter of accounting
            principals  or  practices,   financial  statement,   disclosure,  or
            auditing scope or procedure, which disagreement(s),  if not resolved
            to the satisfaction of the former  accountant,  would have caused it
            to make a reference to the subject matter of the  disagreement(s) in
            connection with its report.

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

      Pursuant to the  requirements of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                          First India Diversified Holdings, Inc.

                                          By: /s/ David Griffith
                                              ..................................
                                              David Griffith, President


Date: May 31, 2001
§ 520.2645 Tylvalosin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Granules containing 62.5 percent tylvalosin (w/w) as tylvalosin tartrate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 066916 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.748 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use in swine* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer 50 parts per million (ppm) tylvalosin continuously in drinking water for 5 consecutive days.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For control of porcine proliferative enteropathy (PPE) associated with *Lawsonia intracellularis* infection in groups of swine intended for slaughter and female swine intended for breeding in buildings experiencing an outbreak of PPE; and for control of swine respiratory disease (SRD) associated with *Bordetella bronchiseptica, Glaesserella (Haemophilus) parasuis, Pasteurella multocida,* *Streptococcus suis,* and *Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae* in groups of swine intended for slaughter and female swine intended for breeding in buildings experiencing an outbreak of SRD.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[77 FR 55415, Sept. 10, 2012, as amended at 83 FR 13635, Mar. 30, 2018; 86 FR 57997, Oct. 20, 2021; 89 FR 14410, Feb. 27, 2024]
§ 526.88 Amoxicillin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each single-dose, 10-milliliter syringe contains amoxicillin trihydrate equivalent to 62.5 milligrams (mg) amoxicillin.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.38 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use in lactating cows* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Infuse the contents of one syringe (equivalent to 62.5 mg amoxicillin) into each infected quarter every 12 hours for a maximum of 3 doses.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of subclinical infectious bovine mastitis due to *Streptococcus agalactiae* and *Straphylococcus aureus* (penicillin sensitive).
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Milk taken from animals during treatment and for 60 hours (5 milkings) after the last treatment must not be used for food. Treated animals must not be slaughtered for food purposes within 12 days after the last treatment. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[57 FR 37334, Aug. 18, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 55660, Nov. 2, 1995; 68 FR 44878, July 31, 2003; 86 FR 13185, Mar. 8, 2021]