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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.42.6

                                                           As of August 28, 2002


ACTV, Inc.
Attn:  Day L. Patterson, Esq.
          General Counsel
233 Park Avenue South, 10th Floor
New York, New York  10003-1606


Re:  Limited Waiver of Certain Employment Agreement Provisions
     ---------------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen,

Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of August 1,
1995 (as modified effective January 18, 2001, as set forth in Section 15
thereof, and as otherwise heretofore amended) (the "Agreement") between ACTV,
Inc. ("ACTV") and the under-signed, and specifically to Section 4(b)(ii)
thereof.

For adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknow-ledged and confirmed by the undersigned, this letter shall serve as my
irrevocable and unconditional agreement with ACTV that upon the date of any
merger of ACTV with or into Liberty Media Corporation ("LMC") or any LMC
subsidiary or affiliate, I do hereby waive (and, upon the date of any such
merger, I shall thereupon be deemed to have waived, without any further action
by me or any notice to or from me) the special compensation payment provided for
in Section 4(b)(ii) of the Agreement insofar and only insofar as such special
compensation payment would otherwise be payable to me with respect to the
exercise of any stock option(s) theretofore issued to me having an exercise
price of $2.50 or more. Accordingly, from and after the date of any such merger,
ACTV shall not have any obligation under Section 4(b)(ii) of the Agreement to
make any special compensation payment to me for, or otherwise to fund, the
exercise of any stock option(s) theretofore issued to me having an exercise
price of $2.50 or more.

In the event that no merger of ACTV with or into Liberty Media Corporation
("LMC") or any LMC subsidiary or affiliate shall occur prior to December 31,
2003, then this instru-ment shall expire and cease to be of any further force or
effect from and after January 1, 2004.

This agreement and waiver shall be deemed governed by the laws of the State of
New York, without reference to such State's laws governing conflicts of laws.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Bruce J. Crowley

   Bruce J. Crowley,
Executive Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,364,802
<SECURITIES>                                11,398,188
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,693,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,801,116
<PP&E>                                       3,937,596
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,403,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,642,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,260,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,166,425
<COMMON>                                       215,217
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,500,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,881,724
<SALES>                                        422,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               422,359
<CGS>                                        1,224,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,224,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,620,129
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,882,199)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,882,199)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,882,199)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 82.2050 General.

A batch of a straight color listed in this subpart may be certified, in accordance with the provisions of this part, for use in externally applied drugs and cosmetics, if such batch conforms to the requirements of § 82.5 and to the specifications set forth in this subpart for such color.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of M.J.C.B ., Jr. * From the 118th District

and M.J.B., children, Court of Howard County,

Trial Court No. 48,789.

No. 11

- 14

- 001 40

- CV * November 14, 2014

* Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opin ion, we

reverse the order of the trial court insofar as it relates to the conservatorship of

M.J.C.B., Jr. and M.J.B. , and we remand the cause to the trial court for

reconsideration of that issue . In all other respects, we affirm the order of the trial

court

.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 13, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135509 & (48) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Petitioner-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 135509 

 COA: 269720 

Ingham CC: 04-001141-AA

BUREAU OF SAFETY AND REGULATION, 

GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY DIVISION, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion to permit representation by foreign counsel is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2007 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows: 

The Michigan Administrative Code, Rule 408.13308(1), provides that “[a]n 

employer shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards that necessitate the use of 

personal protective equipment are present or are likely to be present.”1 Petitioner United 

Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), received two civil citations for violating this rule. It is 

undisputed that UPS did not assess either of its Michigan workplaces. In a published 

opinion, the Court of Appeals vacated the citations, holding that UPS need not perform a 

separate hazard assessment at each workplace to comply with the rule.2

 This decision 

will have serious implications on workplace safety in Michigan and appears to be 

contrary to the language of Rule 408.13308(1). The Supreme Court should grant leave to 

appeal to give this important issue the full consideration it deserves. 

CAVANAGH, J., joins the statement of KELLY, J. 

1

 This rule was promulgated under the authority of the Michigan Occupational Safety and 

Health Act. MCL 408.1001 et seq. 

2 United Parcel Service, Inc v Bureau of Safety & Regulation, 277 Mich App 192 (2007). 

t0610 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 13, 2008 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           3,099                   3,099
<SECURITIES>                                    11,960                  11,960
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,682                  64,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,142                   3,142
<INVENTORY>                                    111,419                 111,419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195,308                 195,308
<PP&E>                                           6,613                   6,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,472                   4,472
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,640                 197,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          150,700                 150,700
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<COMMON>                                             6                       6
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,934                  46,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,640                 197,640
<SALES>                                         90,318                 166,358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,318                 166,358
<CGS>                                           81,604                 150,243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,604                 150,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,179                  12,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   303                     408
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,839                   4,067
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,074                   1,548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,765                   2,519
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,765                   2,519
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32                     .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32                     .45
        

</TABLE>
RULING ON DEMURRER. HELD NOT PREJUDICIAL.

Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

#### W. J. Holden v. Rose M. Davey et al.

Decided, March 6, 1905.

*Pleading and Practice*— Sustaining *Demurrer to Second, Cause of Action When a Repetition of First Cause Not Prejudicial Error.*

Where a petition has set out two causes of action, hut the second is only a repetition of the first with the addition of other facts which would not in themselves constitute a cause of action, sustaining a demurrer to the second cause is not prejudicial error, the demurrer to the first cause of action being overruled.

Marvin, J.; Hale, J., and Winch, J., concur.

The error complained of here is that the court sustained a demurrer to the second cause of action set out in the petition.

Two causes of action were set out in the petition. Demurrer was filed to each of said causes. The court overruled, and properly overruled the demurrer to the first.

The second cause of action begins with the words:

> “For his second cause of action plaintiff says that he incorporates therein all the allegations set out in his first cause of action the same as if therein rewritten.” Then follows allegations which do not in themselves constitute a cause of action.

It is urged, however, that since by virtue of Section 5083, Revised Statutes, the first cause of action is to be treated as though rewritten in the second, and since it is held that the first cause of action is good as against demurrer, it necessarily follows that the second cause of action was also good against a demurrer, without reference to what follows, the allegations making the first cause a part of the second. Logically and technically this is correct, but since by overruling the demurrer to the first cause, the court had left the petition with that cause still to be answered, there was no prejudice to the plaintiff in the rulings as to the second. Since only facts stated in the petition which *538constitute a cause of action against the defendant were left in full force by the ruling on the demurrer, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by such a ruling as confined such facts to one cause of action, wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10759-10760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XU92


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY:  The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee 
on March 16-17, 2010, to consider actions affecting New England 
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from 
this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration 
and action, if appropriate.

DATES:  This meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 16, at 10 a.m. and 
Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Westin 
Boston Waterfront, 425 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210; telephone: 
(617) 532-4600; fax: (617) 532-4889.
    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, 
New

[[Page 10760]]

England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

    The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will discuss 
recommendations for the 2011-2013 red crab Acceptable Biological Catch 
(ABC) and review and possibly consider the 2010 ABC recommendation.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

    The SSC will reconsider the 2010-2011 ABC recommendation for the 
skate complex using updated survey data; review the Ecosystem-Based 
Fishery Management draft policy paper and recommend Terms of Reference 
and SSC representation for the fall 2010 SARC.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Recommendations will be 
restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any 
issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency 
action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the 
public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action 
to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at 978-465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 4, 2010.
William D. Chappell,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-4984 Filed 3-4-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and r ecommendations of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2418

___________ Maurice B. Madison-Bey, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Correctional Medical Services, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 2006 Filed: May 11, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Minnesota state prisoner Maurice Madis on-Bey appeals the district court’s 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Correctional Medical Services (CMS) for de liberate indifference to his medical needs. Madison-Bey has moved for appointment of counsel.-2- After careful review of the record, see Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review),we agree with the district court that the complaint failed, because Madison-Bey did not allege that he suffe red harm as a result of an unconstitutional policy or custom of CMS, the sole named defendant, seeBurke v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab. , 294 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (corporation acting under color of state law may be liable only if policy, custom, or action by those who represent official polic y inflicts injury actionable under § 1983). Further, Madison-Bey’s request to ame nd his complaint to add individual CMS personnel as defendants was futile, becau se his allegations amounted to mere disagreement with the course of his treatmentand at most described negligence, which is insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference. See Dulany v. Carnahan , 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (inmates have no constitutional right to particular course of treatment, and doctors are free to use their own medical judgment; mere negligence or medical malpractice is insufficient to rise to constitutional violation).
Accordingly, we affirm, and we de ny Madison-Bey’s motion for appointment of counsel and decline to consider his num erous other requests submitted for the first time on appeal.

______________________________
§ 820.120 Device labeling. Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures to control labeling activities. ( a ) *Label integrity.* Labels shall be printed and applied so as to remain legible and affixed during the customary conditions of processing, storage, handling, distribution, and where appropriate use.
( b ) *Labeling inspection.* Labeling shall not be released for storage or use until a designated individual(s) has examined the labeling for accuracy including, where applicable, the correct unique device identifier (UDI) or universal product code (UPC), expiration date, control number, storage instructions, handling instructions, and any additional processing instructions. The release, including the date and signature of the individual(s) performing the examination, shall be documented in the DHR.
( c ) *Labeling storage.* Each manufacturer shall store labeling in a manner that provides proper identification and is designed to prevent mixups.
( d ) *Labeling operations.* Each manufacturer shall control labeling and packaging operations to prevent labeling mixups. The label and labeling used for each production unit, lot, or batch shall be documented in the DHR.
( e ) *Control number.* Where a control number is required by § 820.65, that control number shall be on or shall accompany the device through distribution.
[61 FR 52654, Oct. 7, 1996, as amended at 78 FR 58822, Sept. 24, 2013]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Monday, April 12, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, April 12, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Donna Powers. For more information, please contact Ms. Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: March 3, 2010.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2010-4889 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
39131.

#### DUPRIEST v. REESE.

Decided November 17, 1961.

*Stone ■& Stone, W. L. Stone,*for plaintiff in error.

*Phillip Sheffield,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

This case is controlled by the ruling in *Dupriest v.*Reese, ante.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Judges*concur, *except Felton, C. J., luho dissents, and Custer, J., who is disqualified.*
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Jonathan Ali Chtay, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00032

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 196th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 22,940 ). Opinion delivered by Chi ef Justice Morriss,

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We further order that the appellant, Jonathan Ali Chtay, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 22, 201 4

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMILLAH DAUGHTRY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 199 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of November, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.