alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w24







Exhibit 10.24





December 10, 2008



Dear Mr. Rydin,




     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 an Involuntary Termination at any time, severance is equal to 100%
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/ Alexis V. Lukianov
 

Alexis V. Lukianov

	 	/s/ Eileen M. More
 

Eileen M. More
	 	 





I have read and accept the terms of this letter.




	 	 	 
	/s/ Jeffrey Rydin
 

Jeffrey Rydin
§ 483.368 Application of time out. ( a ) A resident in time out must never be physically prevented from leaving the time out area.
( b ) Time out may take place away from the area of activity or from other residents, such as in the resident's room (exclusionary), or in the area of activity or other residents (inclusionary).
( c ) Staff must monitor the resident while he or she is in time out.
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. §1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Hitchin,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                James
                Hitchin
              James
                Hitchin
              Chief
                Executive & Chief Financial Officer
              August
                15, 2006
#### Jacob Silverstein, Respondent, *v.*Francesco Ruggiero et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Wahle & Stone (C. G. F. Wahle, of counsel), for appellants.

A. Pincus and A. S. Levy, for respondent.

*873
      *Per Curiam.*

Upon the vacation of the order of arrest herein plaintiff’s assignor had a cause of action against the defendants for all damages and loss sustained hy him in his efforts to have set aside and vacated said order of arrest.

The damages in this instance consisted of the actual moneys necessarily paid out hy him and also all reasonable counsel fees paid or liability to pay therefor incurred.

This cause of action arising upon contract (viz., upon the undertaking in question) was certainly assignable.

In our judgment no error was committed, and the judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Conlan, J.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
HomeStatus Lists for Treaties for Which the United States is Depositary...Maritime Matters Status Lists

# 						Maritime Matters Status Lists					

1 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year1984

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a Release TypeDepositary – Treaty Affairs

          -    Depositary – Treaty Affairs  		Agreement Concerning Interim Arrangements Relating to Polymetallic Nodules of the Deep Sea Bed, done at Washington September 2, 1982	   

Back to Top
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**











I,
      Donald
      C. Grenesko, the Senior Vice President/Finance and Administration of Tribune
      Company, certify that (i) Tribune Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
      Sept. 24, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 24, 2006 fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Tribune
      Company.

















/s/
                Donald C. Grenesko
              Donald
                C. Grenesko
              Senior
                Vice President/
              Finance
                and Administration
              
              
              November
                2, 2006
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2202

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Oliver Lawrence Beasley, * District of Minnesota. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: February 13, 1998 Filed: March 26, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After Oliver Beasley was indicted on federal charges, his attorney requested a transcript of the grand jur

y proceedings. The request was granted as to the grand jury testimony of all persons who would testif y at trial. A jury subsequently found Beasley guilty as charged, and his convictions were affirmed. United States v. Beasley , 10 2 F.3d 144 0 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1856 (1997). Beasley then filed a moti onfor disclosure of transcripts of the grand jury testimony of all governmen t w itnesses who testified at his trial, asserting that he needed the transcripts to prepareThe Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnesota. -2- a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and that “quite a few witnesses” gave inconsisten t testimony at trial. The district court denied Beasley & s motion, and he appeals. 1 Contrary to the government & s argument, we conclude the district court & s order is appealable. See United States v. Miramontez , 995 F.2d 56, 59 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993). We find n o abuse of discretion in the district court & s decision to deny disclosur e because Beasley failed to demonstrate a “particularized need” for the transcripts. See In re Gran d Jury Investigation , 55 F.3d 350, 354 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 307 (1995); Miramontez , 995 F.2d at 59; Thomas v. United States , 597 F.2d 656, 657 (8th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00321-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 90th District Court

Young County, Texas

Trial Court No. 32990

Before Pittman, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF M.L., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On January 11, 2019, we notified appellant that the trial-court clerk responsible 

for preparing the record in this appeal has informed us that appellant has not arranged 

to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.3(a)(2). In our notice, we warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant arranged to pay for the clerk’s record 

and provided us with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b), 44.3.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, 

we now dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 

42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 7, 2019
#### Claude A. NICHOLS v. Margaret Kerry NICHOLS.

No. 13983.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 13, 1981.

William C. Dupont, Dupont, Dupont & Dupont, Plaquemine, for Plaintiff and Defendant in rule appellee.

Charles W. Seaman, Natchitoches, for Defendant and Plaintiff in rule appellant.

Before ELLIS, COLE and WATKINS, JJ.

WATKINS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of a trial court refusing to award a former wife an executory judgment for past due child support payments, denying attorney’s fees to the former wife, and refusing to hold the husband in contempt of court for failing to make child support payments in the amount fixed in a prior judgment, the amount of payments having been made rather in a reduced amount in accordance with subsequent agreement of the parties. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On December 18, 1978, a judgment of divorce was issued dissolving the marriage of Claude A. Nichols and Margaret Kerry Nichols. The mother, Margaret Kerry Nichols, was granted custody of the four children born of the marriage. The husband was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $80.00 per week.

On June 21,1979, the husband filed a rule for reduction of child support as two children had attained age 18. The wife thereupon filed a rule to increase child support. The rules were fixed for hearing. Before *1110the hearing took place, husband and wife agreed to reduce child support to $200.00 per month, beginning September 1, 1979. The husband’s attorney was to reduce the informal agreement to a written judgment and present the judgment to the court for signature.

The husband commenced making child support payments in the sum of $200.00 per month. Despite correspondence between counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Nichols, the attorney for Mr. Nichols procrastinated, and failed ever to present the judgment that counsel had agreed was to be prepared to the court for signature.

The wife then filed the rule upon which the present appeal is based seeking to make the $80.00 per week judgment for child support executory as to the difference between $80.00 per week and the $200.00 per month paid in accordance with the informal agreement, and attorney’s fees, and seeking further to have the father held in contempt of court.

As the husband and wife agreed to a reduction of child support to $200.00 per month, and as the wife accepted checks in that amount paid by the husband each month in accordance with that agreement, the wife waived the right to receive checks in the greater amount of $80.00 per week on behalf of their children. *Seifert v. Seifert,*374 So.2d 157 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1979); *Dubroc v. Dubroc,*380 So.2d 672 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980), affirmed 388 So.2d 377 (La. 1980).

The wife having waived child support in the greater sum, she is not entitled to attorney’s fees and the husband cannot be considered to have been in contempt of court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed; at appellant’s cost.

AFFIRMED.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...New Partnership with Indonesia to Explore Semiconductor Supply Chain Opportunities

# 									New Partnership with Indonesia to Explore Semiconductor Supply Chain Opportunities							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 13, 2023

The U.S. State Department will partner with the Government of Indonesia to explore opportunities to grow and diversify the global semiconductor ecosystem under the International Technology Security and Innovation (ITSI) Fund, created by the CHIPS Act of 2022.  This partnership will help create a more resilient, secure, and sustainable global semiconductor value chain.

The United States views Indonesia as a partner in ensuring the semiconductor supply chain can keep pace with the digital transformation underway.  Products ranging from vehicles to medical devices increasingly rely on semiconductors as the building blocks of today’s economy.  This collaboration underscores the significant potential to expand this industry in Indonesia to the benefit of both the United States and Indonesia.

The partnership will begin with a review of Indonesia’s current semiconductor ecosystem, regulatory framework, and workforce and infrastructure needs.  The outcome of this review will inform potential future collaboration on developing this critical sector.

In August 2022, President Biden signed the CHIPS Act of 2022, a U.S. law that appropriated new funding to boost domestic manufacturing and research of semiconductors in the United States.  The CHIPS Act of 2022 created the ITSI Fund, which provides the U.S. Department of State with $500 million ($100 million per year over five years, starting in Fiscal Year 2023) to promote the development and adoption of secure and trustworthy telecommunications networks and ensure semiconductor supply chain security and diversification through new programs and initiatives with our allies and partners.

More information about the ITSI Fund: The U.S. Department of State International Technology Security and Innovation Fund.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsIndonesiaOffice of the SpokespersonTechnologyUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 476.98 Reviewer qualifications and participation. ( a ) *Peer review by physician.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, each person who makes an initial denial determination about services furnished or proposed to be furnished by a licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy or by a doctor of dentistry must be respectively another licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy or of dentistry in the QIO area.
( 2 ) If a QIO determines that peers are not available to make initial denial determinations, a doctor of medicine or osteopathy may make denial determinations for services ordered or performed by a doctor in any of the three specialties.
( 3 ) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, individuals authorized to practice medicine in American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands as “medical officers” may make determinations on care ordered or furnished by their peers but not on care ordered or furnished by licensed doctors of medicine or osteopathy.
( b ) *Peer review by health care practitioners other than physicians.* Health care practitioners other than physicians may review services furnished by other practitioners in the same professional field.
( c ) *DRG validation review.* Decisions about procedural and diagnostic information must be made by physicians. Technical coding issues must be reviewed by individuals with training and experience in ICD-9-CM coding.
( d ) *Persons excluded from review.* ( 1 ) A person may not review health care services or make initial denial determinations or changes as a result of DRG validations if he or she, or a member of his or her family— ( i ) Participated in developing or executing the beneficiary's treatment plan;
( ii ) Is a member of the beneficiary's family; or
( iii ) Is a governing body member, officer, partner, 5 percent or more owner, or managing employee in the health care facility where the services were or are to be furnished.
( 2 ) A member of a reviewer's family is a spouse (other than a spouse who is legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance), child (including a legally adopted child), grandchild, parent, or grandparent.
[50 FR 15330, Apr. 17, 1985, as amended at 77 FR 68561, Nov. 15, 2012]
HomeRecent Actions for Treaties for Which the United States is Depositary...Peace Recent Actions

# 									Peace Recent Actions							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Tags

MultilateralPeaceTreaties

Back to Top
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 29 , 202 2

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 2

- 00 065

- CV

WAYNE TRAYWICK , Appellant

V.
HOUSTON FREIGHTLINER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 1 33 rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 84554

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted accelerated appeal from an interlocutory summary judgment signed November 29, 2021 d ismissing appellant Wayne Traywick’s request for exemplary damages

. See T ex. C iv . Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.0115(d) ; Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(i)

. The appellate record does not contain other
orders that would create a final judgment, and t he interlocutory summary judgment lacks any apparent basis for being immediately appealable. See CMH Homes v. Perez , 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (acknowledging the general rule that2

“interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable”) ; see also Teer v. Duddlesten , 664 S.W.2d 702, 70 4 (quoting Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Tex. Pac. Coal & Oil
Co. , 324 S.W.2d 200, 201 (Tex. 1959) (per curiam)) (“In the absence of an order of severance, a party against whom an interlocutory summary judgment has been rendered will have his right of appeal when and not before the same is merged in a final judgment disposing of the whole case.”)

. Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was marked as filed January 31, 2022, though there is an earlier timestamp indicating the document was at least received by the trial court clerk on January 30, 2022. Regardless of which date is the correct one,
the document was filed beyond the deadline for filing a notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal from an interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within 20 days after underlying judgment or order is signed); see also T ex. R. App. P. 28.1(a) (noting that appeals from interlocutory orders are accelerated appeals); In re A.A.S. , 367 S.W.3d 905, 909 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] 2012, no pet. ) (acknowledging motions that could otherwise extend deadline for filing notice o f appeal to 90 days have no such effect on deadline for filing notice of appeal in accelerated appeal)

. On February 14 , 202 2 , this court informed appellant of the lack of any appealable order or timely notice of appeal and provided notice that the appeal w as subject to involuntary dismissal if he failed to show meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 4 2.3 (a). Appellant filed no response to the
notice . Accordingly, due to the lack of any basis for exercising jurisdiction over this
app eal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On Pride Month

# 									On Pride Month							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

June 1, 2021

During this year’s Pride Month, we celebrate an important message: “You are Included.” The diverse experiences, perspectives, and contributions of the State Department community make our institution stronger and advance the goals of American diplomacy. Out of many, we are one.

The Department has committed to increasing U.S. engagement on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) human rights issues abroad. As we do so, we work with partners around the world who bring to bear expertise on their unique challenges and innovative solutions. We recognize that, through these partnerships, we will be able to build a safer, more inclusive global society for all LGBTQI+ persons. We also strive to increase visibility of and address the acute challenges faced by particularly marginalized LGBTQI+ communities, including women and girls; racial and religious minorities; persons with disabilities; and transgender, gender diverse, and intersex persons.

As we celebrate Pride Month this June, let us not only observe how far we have come in the struggle for the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons, but also acknowledge the challenges that remain. LGBTQI+ persons around the world continue to face discrimination, violence, and other forms of persecution because of who they are and whom they love. Although we still have work to do, the Department is proud to lead by the power of example, including the example set by the LGBTQI+ members of our workforce, in the promotion of human rights for all persons.

We are proudly diverse in identity but unified in our shared commitment to the freedom and dignity of all.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborHuman RightsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1777 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1777

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 to make permanent 
    the favorable treatment of need-based educational aid under the 
                            antitrust laws.

    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 ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 
2008''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

     Subsection (d) of section 568 of the Improving America's Schools 
Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is repealed.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 30, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1777

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 to make permanent 
    the favorable treatment of need-based educational aid under the 
                            antitrust laws.
```
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Thechairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.**
 
1995 | 2012 | 2016 | 2019
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.2:C 34/2/
Item Number:0315 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000994142
 
July 23, 2019