alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AARON SAPP,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1279

[April 9, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barbara McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-6109CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Claire Victoria Madill, Malik 

Ramelize, Kelly Parker and Simeon Thomas Lyons, Assistant Public 

Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., CIKLIN, J., and BOKOR, ALEXANDER, Associate Judge, concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
exv10w20






Exhibit 10.20





December 10, 2008



Dear Mr. Lukianov,




     This amendment (this “Amendment”) to the letter agreement between NuVasive and you dated
August 5, 2008 (the “Original Agreement”, together with this Amendment, the “Agreement”) confirms
the material compensation terms of your continued employment with NuVasive. Except as otherwise
defined herein, defined terms used herein have the meanings set forth in the Appendix of Defined
Terms attached to the Original Agreement. The terms of the Original Agreement are modified as
follows:




	 	1.	 	A performance bonus, if any, that is payable to you shall be paid no later than
March 15th of the year following the calendar year in which it is earned.
	 
	 	2.	 	The definition of Severance Benefit is amended and restated in its entirety by
the following:





     “‘Severance Benefit’ upon any termination of your employment (whether voluntary or
involuntary) at any time, severance is equal to 200% of Compensation. Such amount shall be due and
payable immediately upon any such termination and upon the condition that you execute NuVasive’s
standard form of release of claims and that such release of claims becomes effective in accordance
with its terms on or prior to the 45th day following such termination.”



     No other amendments to the Original Agreement are contemplated by this Amendment and all
remaining terms set forth in the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. We look
forward to your continued success with NuVasive.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Truly Yours,





NUVASIVE, INC.

 	 
	 	/s/ Eileen M. Moore
 	 
	 	Eileen M. More 	 
	 	 	 
	 




I have read and accept the terms of this letter.



	 	 	 
	/s/ Alexis V. Lukianov
 

Alexis V. Lukianov
§ 423.2114 Dismissal of request for review. The Council dismisses a request for review if the enrollee requesting review did not file the request within the stated period of time and the time for filing has not been extended. The Council also dismisses the request for review if— ( a ) The enrollee asks to withdraw the request for review;
( b ) The individual or entity does not have a right to request Council review; or
( c ) The enrollee died while the request for review is pending and the enrollee's estate or representative, if any, either has no remaining financial interest in the case or does not want to continue the appeal.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5138, Jan. 17, 2017]
Exhibit 10.10
 International Employees
 Dionex Corporation  Stock Unit Grant Notice  ( 2004 Equity Incentive Plan)
 Company Plan Stock Units Award Grant Notice Award
Agreement
 Participant:Date of Grant:Vesting Commencement DateNumber of Stock Units:Consideration:
    
    Participants services to the Company
 Vesting Schedule
 Delivery Schedule
 Additional Terms/Acknowledgements:
 Other Agreements:
 Dionex Corporation
    
    ParticipantBy:Signature
    
    
    
    SignatureTitle:
    
    
    
    Date:Date:Attachments: Award Agreement and Plan




---



##### 



International
Employees
 Dionex Corporation  2004 Equity Incentive Plan  Stock Unit Award Agreement
 Grant Notice Agreement Company Plan Award
 1. Grant of Award Account
 2. Vesting
 3. Number of Stock Units and Shares of Common Stock.
 (a) provided, however,
 (b)




---



##### 



(c)
 4. Delivery of Shares of Common Stock
 (a)
 (b) Insider
Trading and Window Period Policy Original Delivery Date
 (c) e.g.
 5. Securities Law Compliance
 6. Restrictive Legends.
 7. Transfer Restrictions.
 2.




---



##### 



8. Award not a Service Contract
 9. Unsecured Obligation
 10. Withholding Obligations.
 (a) Withholding Taxes provided,
however
 (b)
 3.




---



##### 



(c)
 11. Notices
 12. Headings .
 13. Amendment .
 14. Personal Data Personal Data Sensitive Personal Data
 4.




---



##### 



15. Miscellaneous.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 16. Additional Acknowledgements.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 5.




---



##### 



(f)
 (g)
 (h)
 (i)
 (j)
 17. Governing Plan Document
 18. Effect on Other Employee Benefit Plans.
 19. Choice of Law .
 6.




---



##### 



20. Severability.
 21. Other Documents. Insider Trading and Window Period Policy
   7.




---



##### 



Dionex Corporation  2004 Equity Incentive Plan
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Imposing Sanctions in Response to DPRK-Russia Weapon Deals

# 									Imposing Sanctions in Response to DPRK-Russia Weapon Deals							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

May 16, 2024

The United States is today imposing sanctions on five Russia-based individuals and entities connected to the transfer of military equipment and components between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Russian Federation in violation of the UN arms embargo on the DPRK.  Russia has increasingly relied upon the DPRK for munitions to wage its war on Ukraine and has fired dozens of DPRK-supplied ballistic missiles against targets in Ukraine.

Today’s action builds on several sanctions designations over the past year targeting the Russia-DPRK military relationship and highlights our opposition to continued arms transfers and the deepening of defense cooperation between Russia and DPRK.  Russia has already used upwards of 40 DPRK-produced ballistic missiles against Ukraine, as well as munitions, which Moscow imported in direct contravention of UNSC resolutions on the DPRK.

The deepening DPRK-Russia relationship poses a wide-ranging threat to global security and the international non-proliferation regime.  We condemn Russia’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution that would have extended the mandate of the UN 1718 Committee Panel of Experts, a body that documented the DPRK’s UN sanctions violations.  We will continue to take all appropriate steps to counter the destabilizing Russia-DPRK partnership and call on others in the international community to join us.

*The Department of the Treasury actions today were taken pursuant to Executive Order 13551.  For more information on today’s action, see Treasury’s**press release**.*

 

Tags

Arms Control and NonproliferationBureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and StabilityBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsNonproliferationNorth KoreaOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaSanctionsUnited Nations

Back to Top
#### § 456.613 Action on reports.

The agency must take corrective action as needed based on the report and recommendations of the team submitted under this subpart.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Henry MARTIN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 55338.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1974.

In re: Henry Martin applying for Writs of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Prohibition.

Writ refused as to responsive judgment question. This matter was disposed of on the appeal. See State v. Martin, La., 290 So.2d 872. A writ is granted and an evi-dentiary hearing is ordered as to the effectiveness of trial counsel.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31111 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES M. SAM, SR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CR-60002-02

- - - - - - - - - - August 28, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James M. Sam, Sr., appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit food stamp fraud, theft of government property, and money laundering; money laundering; and criminal forfeiture. He argues that the district court erred in applying § 2S1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in calculating his sentence. The district court did not err in grouping Sam’s offenses under § 3D1.2 of the Guidelines. United States v. Patterson , 962 F.2d 409, 416 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court did not err in applying the highest offense levelNo. 97-31111 -2- applicable to the offense of money laundering pursuant to §§ 2S1.1 and 2S1.2 of the Guidelines. See United States v. Hoster , 988 F.2d 1374, 1381 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2017

No. 04-17-00300-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.L.M.H., A CHILD,

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-244

Honorable Cathy Morris, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time

is extended to August 21, 2017. No further extensions of time will be considered absent 

extraordinary circumstances. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of August, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00567-CR

NO. 03-17-00568-CR

Samuel Hal Wade, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

NOS. D-09-0411-SA & D-09-0412-SA, 

THE HONORABLE BRAD GOODWIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E

A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by 

a brief concluding that the instant appeals are frivolous and without merit. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he 

provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine 

the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for 

pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with 

this Court.
Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial 

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record in each of these causes to 

appellant, and to provide written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the 

appellate record was provided, on or before January 29, 2018. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on January 18, 2018.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Do Not Publish
Comments on Methane White Papers

Administrator McCarthy—

On behalf of the Attorneys General of New York, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

and Vermont, please find attached consolidated comments on EPA’s methane white papers and an attachment

cited in the comments. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this important issue.

Michael J. Myers 

Chief, Affirmative Litigation Section 

Environmental Protection Bureau 

New York State Attorney General 

The Capitol 

Albany, NY 12224 

(518) 402­2594 

michael.myers@ag.ny.gov

Michael J. Myers <Michael.Myers@ag.ny.gov>

Mon 6/16/2014 5:03 PM

To:Mccarthy, Gina <McCarthy.Gina@epa.gov>; OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

Cc:Goffman, Joseph <Goffman.Joseph@epa.gov>; 

 2 attachments

States' final methane white paper comments.pdf; BU Duke Gas Leaks Report.pdf; 

Comments on Methane White Papers - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-69554, 333-53296, 333-53296-01, 333-53296-02 and 333-53296-03 on Form S-3 of
TXU US Holdings Company of our report dated March 11, 2004 (which includes
explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards Nos. 145 and 142 and the rescission of Emerging Issues Task
Force Issue 98-10 as described in Notes 1, 6 and 2, respectively, of the Notes
to the Financial Statements), appearing in TXU US Holdings Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 18, 2004
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3403

To amend title III of the Job Training Partnership Act to provide employment

and training assistance for individuals who work full-time at a plant,

facility, or enterprise that is a part of an economically depressed industry

and is located in an economically depressed area.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 7, 1996

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To amend title III of the Job Training Partnership Act

to provide employment and training assistance for individuals who work full-time at a plant, facility, or enterprise that is a part of an economically depressed industry

and is located in an economically depressed area.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3403 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

2 ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EM3 PLOYED AT A PLANT, FACILITY, OR ENTER4 PRISE THAT IS A PART OF AN ECONOMI5 CALLY DEPRESSED INDUSTRY AND IS LO6 CATED IN AN ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED

7 AREA.

8 Section 301(a)(1) of the Job Training Partnership

9 Act (29 U.S.C. 1651(a)(1)) is amended—

10 (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or’’ at

11 the end;

12 (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period

13 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

14 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub15 paragraph:

16 ‘‘(E) are employed full-time at a plant, facility,

17 or enterprise that is a part of an economically de18 pressed industry and is located in an economically

19 depressed area, as determined by the Secretary.’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Randall C. TOBIN.

No. 80-O-2868.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Randall C. Tobin, on motion to remand. Parish of Jefferson. No. 79-1440.

*1363The motion to remand is granted, and the case is remanded to the district court for a hearing on the motion for a new trial.

MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., dissent.
HomePartnerships – Office of Global Partnerships...Diaspora Voices

# 									Diaspora Voices							

Office of Global Partnerships

Originally launched by the Office of Global Partnerships in 2016, Diaspora Voices is an interactive virtual event series that gives diaspora organizations the ability to engage with top diplomats about the challenges directly affecting their communities and opens the dialogue for opportunities to work with the U.S. Department of State to address them.

As part of the State Department’s emphasis on developing Foreign Policy for the Middle Class, Diaspora Voices works to incorporate underrepresented perspectives in the work of diplomacy and international development. The renewed Diaspora Voices series will focus on specific policy issues and priorities, beginning with the topic of climate change, to directly engage the communities facing these challenges head on.

Diaspora Voices relaunched in Summer 2022 with a series of conversations about climate change, with the aim to engage diaspora thoughts, concerns, and ideas as we prepare for COP27 in Egypt in late 2022. The first event of this year’s multi-part series was hosted on World Oceans Day and aimed to address climate change and our oceans, highlighting current efforts by diaspora organizations to mitigate the harmful effects on communities. The second event examined diasporas’ role in food security and sustainability, both in their countries of origin/heritage and of residence.
        - Diaspora Voices: Protecting Our Oceans (June 2022) 
        - Diaspora Voices: Food Security and Sustainability (August 2022)

Past Diaspora Voices videos can be found using the links below:
        - Diaspora Voices: Ukrainians and Armenians Share Their Stories (September 2016)
        - Diaspora Voices: People of the Americas Share Their Stories (October 2016)
        - Diaspora Voices: Heading the Call – Leading the Charge (February 2017)

Tags

Civil SocietyPartnershipsPublic-Private PartnershipsOffice of Global Partnerships

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7374

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY GRANT PRYSOCK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (7:11-cr-00171-HMH-1; 7:14-cv-02908-HMH)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Grant Prysock, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Grant Prysock appeals the district court’s order 

construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it for lack of 

jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Prysock, Nos. 

7:11-cr-00171-HMH-1; 7:14-cv-02908-HMH (D.S.C. filed July 21, 

2014; entered July 22, 2014). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Rachel Trejo as next friend of 

Rene Trejo (Appellee/ CrossAppellant)Appellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 23, 2014

No. 04-13-00559-CV

HILL COUNTRY-SAN ANTONIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. a.k.a. Hill Country 

Achievement 

Appellant/ Cross-Appellee,

v.

Rachel TREJO as next friend of Rene Trejo

Appellee/ Cross-Appellant

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-20045

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On February 12, 2014, this court issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s order in the 

above styled cause of action. On February 27, 2014, Appellant filed a motion for en banc 

reconsideration that remains pending before this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. On May 20, 

2014, this court requested Appellee file a response to the motion for en banc reconsideration. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.2. A response has never been received by Appellee.

On July 22, 2014, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. However, the only 

matter still pending before this court is the motion for en banc reconsideration. We, therefore, 

ORDER Appellant to file a response to this order by October 3, 2014 clarifying whether 

Appellant seeks to dismiss the motion for en banc reconsideration or requests this court withdraw 

the court’s opinion dated February 12, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c).

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 423.657 Authority of representatives. ( a ) A representative appointed and qualified in accordance with § 423.656, on behalf of the represented party— ( 1 ) Gives or accepts any notice or request pertinent to the proceedings set forth in this subpart;
( 2 ) Presents evidence and allegations as to facts and law in any proceedings affecting that party; and
( 3 ) Obtains information to the same extent as the party.
( b ) A notice or request sent to the representative has the same force and effect as if it is sent to the party.
§ 423.315 General payment provisions. ( a ) *Source of payments.* CMS payments under this section are made from the Medicare Prescription Drug Account.
( b ) *Monthly payments.* CMS provides a direct subsidy in the form of advance monthly payments equal to the Part D plan's standardized bid, risk adjusted for health status as provided in § 423.329(b), minus the monthly beneficiary premium as determined in § 423.286.
( c ) *Reinsurance subsidies.* CMS provides reinsurance subsidy payments described in § 423.329(c) on a monthly basis during a year based on either estimated or incurred allowable reinsurance costs as provided under § 423.329(c)(2)(i), and final reconciliation to actual allowable reinsurance costs as provided in § 423.343(c).
( d ) *Low-income subsidies.* CMS makes payments for premium and cost sharing subsidies, including additional coverage above the initial coverage limit, on behalf of certain subsidy-eligible individuals as provided in §§ 423.780 and 423.782. CMS provides low-income cost-sharing subsidy payments described in § 423.782 through interim payments of amounts as provided under § 423.329(d)(2)(i) and reconciliation to actual allowable reinsurance costs as provided in § 423.343(d).
( e ) *Risk-sharing arrangements.* CMS may issue lump-sum payments or adjust monthly payments in the following payment year based on the relationship of the Part D plan's adjusted allowable risk corridor costs to predetermined risk corridor thresholds in the coverage year as provided in § 423.336.
( f ) *Retroactive adjustments and reconciliations.* CMS reconciles payment year disbursements with updated enrollment and health status data, actual low-income cost-sharing costs and actual allowable reinsurance costs as provided in § 423.343.
( g ) *Special rules for private fee-for-service plans* — ( 1 ) *Application of reinsurance.* For private fee-for-service plans (as defined by § 422.4(a)(3) of this chapter) offering qualified prescription drug coverage, CMS determines the amount of reinsurance payments as provided under § 423.329(c)(3).
( 2 ) *Exemption from risk corridor provisions.* The provisions of § 423.336 regarding risk sharing do not apply.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bernard HARRIS.

No. 63082.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Bernard Harris, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. Application is moot. The appeal has been lodged and is docketed for hearing in this court on November 17.
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...Kiribati (19-719) – Treaty on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries

# 									Kiribati (19-719) – Treaty on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

July 19, 2019

Boundaries and Boundary Waters

Treaty signed at Majuro September 6, 2013. Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate December 9, 2016 (Treaty Doc. 114-3, 114th Congress, 2d Session). Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations March 20, 2018 (Senate Executive Report No. 115-3, 115th Congress, 2d Session). Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate July 26, 2018. Ratified by the President March 27, 2019. Exchange of Notes at Bairiki and Suva, January 17, 2014 and July 19, 2019. Entered into force July 19, 2019.
Download Treaty						 [258 KB]

Tags

Boundaries and Boundary WatersKiribatiTreaties

Back to Top