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

###### Federal Reserve System

      ( print page 46592)    
                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 24, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York**                     (Ivan Hurwitz, Bank Applications Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:                

*1. The Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd.*, Osaka, Japan; to acquire Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, and thereby indirectly acquire Nikko Asset Management Americas, Inc., New York, New York, and engage in investment advisory activities, pursuant to Section 225.28(b)(6) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 4, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-21793 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Abatement Order filed December 30, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00391

- CR NO. 14

- 14

- 00392

- CR

____________ HOWARD MARTIN HARRIS, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 14CR0154 & 12CR1863



### ABATEMENT ORDER

The records in these appeals do not contain the trial court ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 38. 22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their
absence . Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 ' 6; Urias v. State , 155 S.W.3d 141, 142(Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to

correct the error is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and c onclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State , 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement , if it has not already done so, and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the c lerk of this Court on or before January 30, 2015.
The appeal s are abated, treated as closed case s , and removed from this
Court’s active docket. The appeal s will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal s filed by either party.

PER CURIAM
SCPW-13-0000130
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER (By : R eck ten wal d, C.J ., Nak ayama, Ac oba , M cKe nna , a nd Pol lac k, JJ. )

Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s “Motion for Release Pending Disposition of Post Conviction Petition Rule 40 [HRAP 23]”, filed on March 4, 2013, which we review as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the document attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the State of Hawai # i owes him a duty to release him from custody and provide him gate money and clothes pending the disposition of his HRPP Rule 40 proceeding and petitioner has alternative means to seek relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000130 20-MAR-2013 02:39 PM2

issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai # i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 20, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack
HomeInternational Digital Economy and Telecommunication Advisory Committee...2018-2020 ITAC Charter Membership List

# 									2018-2020 ITAC Charter Membership List							

 

Tags

Advisory CommitteeInternational Telecommunication UnionTelecommunications

Back to Top
exv10w21






Exhibit 10.21




January 23, 2009




Robert Kimball

c/o RealNetworks

2601 Elliott Avenue

Seattle, WA 98121




Bob,




It is our great pleasure to offer you the position of Executive Vice President, Corporate
Development and Law, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. As a result of this promotion your
annual salary will increase to $370,000 (subject to normal withholdings).



In addition, your Executive MBO target will increase from 45% to 75% of your new base salary. Your
salary changes are retroactive to October 1, 2008. Your total target annual compensation will
increase to $647,500.



The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has authorized a grant of equity in RN under
the terms of RN’s 2005 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). You will be given the opportunity, under
separate cover, to make an irrevocable election to receive this award in the form of 130,000 stock
options, 43,333 restricted stock units, or a combination of 65,000 options and 21,667 restricted
stock units. This election must be made no later than February 13, 2009 with an effective date of
February 14, 2009 (the “Grant Date”). Vesting will commence on the grant date according to the
vesting rules and all other provisions contained in the Plan. Should you elect to receive your
grant as stock options; the exercise price of the stock options granted to you shall be equal to
the fair market value of RN’s Common Stock on the Grant Date. Fair market value shall equal the
last sale price for shares of RN’s Common Stock on the Grant Date as reported on NASDAQ. Please be
aware that unvested stock options are forfeited upon termination of employment.



This promotion has been approved by the Board of Directors and comes in recognition of the fine
work you have done at Real.



Bob, please accept our congratulations on your promotion. We look forward to your continued
contributions and future success.



Sincerely,




/s/ Sid Ferrales




Savino “Sid” Ferrales

SVP Human Resources

RealNetworks, Inc.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John BOUDREAUX, Jr.

No. 64863.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 1, 1979.

A. J. Boudreaux, Staff Appeals Counsel, 24th Judicial District Indigent Defender Bd., Metairie, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Ma-moulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Amendment No. 2 to Foundation Health Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated 1998 SOP



 EXHIBIT 10.32 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO 
 TO THE 
 FOUNDATION HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 1998 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Health Net, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Foundation Health Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated 1998 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of key employees and directors of the Company;

 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to permit the Company to withhold fractional shares of common stock of the Company,
par value $0.001 (“Common Stock”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has the
power to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 6.2 thereof; and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board has recommended
that the Board amend the Plan as provided below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

  

	1.	Section 4.2(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the second sentence thereof, which states “If payment is to be made by delivery of Mature Shares, any fraction of
a share of Common Stock which would be required to pay such purchase price shall be disregarded and the remaining amount due shall be paid in cash by the optionee” and replacing it with the following sentence: 

 “In the event the Company rounds up and withholds a whole share of Common Stock in order to satisfy the exercise price obligation in respect of the
exercise price of any fraction of a share of Common Stock, the Company shall refund an amount in cash to optionee, which amount shall equal the difference between the Fair Market Value of the whole share of Common Stock withheld to satisfy the
exercise price obligation, less the Fair Market Value of such fractional share of Common Stock.” 
  

	2.	Section 6.5 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence thereof: “Any fraction of a share of Common Stock which would be required to satisfy such an
obligation shall be disregarded and the remaining amount due shall be paid in cash by the holder” and replacing it with the following sentence: 

 “Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, in the event the Company rounds up and withholds a whole share of Common Stock in order to satisfy such tax obligation in respect of any fraction of a share of Common
Stock, the Company shall refund an amount in cash to optionee, which amount shall equal the difference between the Fair Market Value of the whole share of Common Stock withheld to satisfy such tax obligation, less the Fair Market Value of such
fractional share of Common Stock.” 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Health Net, Inc. has
caused this instrument to be signed on this 14th day of January, 2009. 
  

			
	HEALTH NET, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Karin Mayhew

	 Name:
	 	Karin Mayhew
	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President,
Organization Effectiveness
#### § 435.1005 Beneficiaries in institutions eligible under a special income standard.

For beneficiaries in institutions whose Medicaid eligibility is based on a special income standard established under § 435.236, FFP is available in expenditures for services provided to those individuals only if their income before deductions, as determined by SSI budget methodology, does not exceed 300 percent of the SSI benefit amount payable under section 1611(b)(1) of the Act to an individual in his own home who has no income or resources.

[58 FR 4933, Jan. 19, 1993]
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases

HomeBureau of Energy Resources...Leadership – Bureau of Energy Resources

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Energy Resources					

4											Items									

          -  							Pyatt, Geoffrey R.						Assistant SecretaryBureau of Energy Resources 
          -  							Lochman, Laura						Principal Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Energy Resources 
          -  							Harrington, Kimberly D. 						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Energy Resources 
          -  							Shpitsberg, Anna						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Energy Resources 

Back to Top
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13543

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cr-00046-RBD-GJK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DEREK COLEMAN CORKER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 19, 2018)

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-13543 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Derek Corker appeals his term and conditions of supervised release. On 

appeal, Corker argues that the district court erred in failing to elicit objections after 

it imposed its sentence.

Ordinarily, when a defendant does not object to the district court’s 

imposition of the term and conditions of supervised release, we will review only 

for plain error. United States v. Nash, 438 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006). If, 

however, the district court fails to elicit objections after imposing a sentence, we 

will review the sentence de novo. United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1242 

(11th Cir. 2006).

The district court must elicit fully articulated objections, following the 

imposition of a sentence, to the court’s ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102 (11th Cir. 1990), overruled on 

other grounds, United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc). 

We have held that when the district court merely asks if there is “anything 

further?” or “anything else?” and neither party responds with objections, then the 

district court has failed to elicit fully articulated objections, as is required by Jones. 

United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007). If a district court 

fails to comply with Jones, we will normally vacate the sentence and remand to the 

district court to give the parties an opportunity to present their objections. Id. at 

Case: 17-13543 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

1347. Remanding to the district court is unnecessary if the record on appeal is 

sufficient to enable review. Id.

Here, the district court did not comply with Jones because it did not 

expressly elicit objections from Corker after imposing Corker’s sentence. Jones, 

899 F.2d at 1102. Additionally, the district court’s question, “[a]nything else from 

the defense?” did not satisfy Jones because it did not elicit an objection from 

Corker. Campbell, 473 F.3d at 1348. A remand is necessary because the record 

does not indicate why the district court chose ten years of supervised release, as 

opposed to the statutory minimum term of five years supervised release, or why it 

imposed the special conditions on computer use. Campbell, 473 F.3d at 1347. 

Accordingly, we vacate and remand for resentencing on the term and conditions of 

Corker’s supervised release. 

VACATE AND REMAND. 

Case: 17-13543 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 3 of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

STATUS REPORT 

;·, 

f~ ,; ~ i~t - ") -.,_F r.; .. - D; c; Q ' ..... , .; 

DOT-OST-1995-272 

formerly Docket 49233 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
2 

There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: December 2, 2014 

Acting Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Vinh Q. Nguyen 

Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

F~: 202-366-7152 
3 

Docket No. DOT -OST -1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of December, 2014, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: 

Original 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By First Class Mail 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

255 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408 

Scot Spencer 

22604 Esplanada Circle 

Boca Raton, Florida 33433
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL INGRAM EL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JOE CRAIL; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 16866

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 01976

- MCE

- EFB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Michael Ingram El appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging breach of contract

. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Naffe v. Frey , 789

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 16866

F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action for lack of sub ject

matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege plausibly that his action arose

under a treaty of the United States, or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331, 1332(a); Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer , 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.

200 4) (jurisdictional dismissal is warranted where claims are “ made solely for the

purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction ” (citation omitted ) ) ; Kanter v. Warner

Lambert Co. , 265 F.3d 853, 857

- 58 (9th Cir. 2001) ( requirements for asserting

diversity under § 1332 ).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.620 Publication of the ambulance fee schedule. ( a ) Changes in payment rates resulting from incorporation of the annual inflation factor and the productivity adjustment as described in § 414.610(f) will be announced by CMS by instruction and on the CMS Web site.
( b ) CMS will follow applicable rulemaking procedures in publishing revisions to the fee schedule for ambulance services that result from any factors other than those described in § 414.610(f).
[75 FR 73626, Nov. 29, 2010]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Rocket Engine for Mars Sample Return Using In Situ PropellantsRecent studies for the planned Mars sample return mission were reviewed and modified to utilize carbon monoxide and oxygen as potential in situ propellants. Based on these studies a representative full scale engine thrust of 2225 N (500 lbf) was selected as appropriate to demonstrate performance, and the design for that engine is presented. Previous experimental results combined with parametric analyses were used to define the geometry for the engine which operates on liquid carbon monoxide and liquid oxygen. The engine was constructed using a combination of high-temperature alloys and lightweight ceramics. The materials selected were hafnium oxide, iridium, rhenium, and carbon-carbon.Document ID19970010252Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsLinne, Diane L.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1997Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107396NASA-TM-107396AIAA-97-0893Meeting InformationMeeting: Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 6, 1997End Date: January 10, 1997Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N15456Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP-953-36Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970010252.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