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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee H—Clinical Groups                    

*Date:*                         October 5-6, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 8 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Timothy C. Meeker, MD, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8103, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-1279,                         *meekert@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 3, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-22017 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Matter of the Assignment of John J. Jacobs.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

June, 1899.)

Assignment for benefit of creditors — Payment refused of a preferred claim for services rendered before the assignment.

A motion, to compel a general assignee to make a preferred payment (Laws of 1897, chap. 624, § 29), of a claim for services rendered to the assignor previous to the assignment, will be denied as prematurely made, where an action is pending to set aside the assignment and it does not appear whether the services were rendered within a" year of it, nor whether the assignee has funds enough to pay in full all preferred claims of the nature of the one in question.

Motion to compel assignee to pay an alleged preferred claim for services rendered to assignor.

Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, for motion.

R. H. Griffin, opposed.

Gildersleeve, J.

This is a motion to compel an assignee for the benefit of creditors to pay a claim for services rendered to the assignor previous to the assignment, on the ground that it is a preferred claim under section 29 of the General Assignment .Act. Laws of 1897, chap. 624. It appears, however, that some question has been raised as to whether the claim in question is of a nature to bring it within the provision of the act referred to, which is as follows, viz.: “ In all distribution of assets under all assignments made in pursuance of this act, the wages or salaries actually owing to "the employes of the assignor or assignors at the time of the execution of the assignment for services rendered within one year prior to the execution of such assignment, shall be preferred before any other debt; and should the assets of the assignor or assignors not be sufficient to pay in full all the claims preferred, pursuant to this section, they shall be applied to the payment of the same pro *rata*to the amount of each such claim.” It further appears that an action is pending to set aside the assignment. The assignee requests that this motion be postponed until the determination of this action. It does not appear *758from the papers on this motion whether or not there is sufficient money in the assignee’s hands to pay all the preferred claims of this kind, so that it is not possible to say, even assuming' that the claim in question is entitled to the preference demanded, whether it should be paid *pro rata*or in full. The motion is that it be paid in full. Eor does it appear whether or not the alleged services were rendered within one year prior to the execution óf the assignment. Without passing upon the merits of the claim, it séems to me that the moving papers are insufficient, and also that the application is premature.

Motion denied; no costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.489 Protest to lack of unity of invention before the International Preliminary Examining Authority.

(a) If the applicant disagrees with the holding of lack of unity of invention by the International Preliminary Examining Authority, additional fees may be paid under protest, accompanied by a request for refund and a statement setting forth reasons for disagreement or why the required additional fees are considered excessive, or both.

(b) Protest under paragraph (a) of this section will be examined by the Director or the Director's designee. In the event that the applicant's protest is determined to be justified, the additional fees or a portion thereof will be refunded.

(c) An applicant who desires that a copy of the protest and the decision thereon accompany the international preliminary examination report when forwarded to the Elected Offices, may notify the International Preliminary Examining Authority to that effect any time prior to the issuance of the international preliminary examination report. Thereafter, such notification should be directed to the International Bureau.

[52 FR 20050, May 28, 1987]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,983
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,677
<INVENTORY>                                     68,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               218,130
<PP&E>                                         661,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 342,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 731,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,881
<BONDS>                                        329,428
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           679
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   731,587
<SALES>                                        491,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               492,352
<CGS>                                          420,755
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  464,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,636
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,636
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49


</TABLE>
exv10w59






Exhibit 10.59




Amendment to Immediately Exercisable Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement




     THIS AMENDMENT TO IMMEDIATELY EXERCISABLE NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT (the
"Amendment”) is entered into as of February 2, 2009, by and between Power Integrations, Inc. (the
"Company”) and Balu Balakrishnan (the “Optionee”). Pursuant to that certain Stipulation of
Compromise and Settlement approved by the United States District Court, Northern District of
California on July 18, 2008, effective January 26, 2009, this Amendment amends that certain
Immediately Exercisable Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) for option
grant # 002078, granted on February 21, 2002 only as expressly set forth herein. All terms not
defined herein shall have the meanings as set forth in the Original Agreement.



     The Company has granted to the Optionee pursuant to the Power Integrations, Inc. 1997 Stock
Option Plan (the “Plan”) an option to purchase certain shares of Stock, upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the Original Agreement (the “Option”). The Option shall in all respects be
subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and the Original Agreement, as amended pursuant to
this Amendment.



     The exercise price for 50,000 shares subject to the Option is hereby amended from $14.82 to
$21.20. In connection with this amendment, the Option will be treated as a nonstatutory stock
option. As of February 2, 2009, the Option remains exercisable for the number of shares (less any
shares as to which the Option was exercised after January 28, 2009) and at the exercise prices as
set forth below.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Number of Shares	Exercise Price
	86,887
	 	$	14.82	 
	50,000
	 	$	21.20	 






     This Amendment, and the Original Agreement, as modified herein, together constitute the entire
understanding and agreement of the Optionee and the Company with respect to the subject matter
contained herein and there are no agreements, understandings, restrictions, representations, or
warranties among the Optionee and the Company with respect to such subject matter other than those
as set forth or provided for herein.



 









 





     This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of California as such laws are
applied to agreements between California residents entered into and to be performed entirely within
the State of California.



	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Bill Roeschlein
	 	 	 
	 	 	Bill Roeschlein
	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Address:
	 	5245 Hellyer Avenue
	 

	 	 	 	San Jose, CA 95138






Accepted and Agreed:




	 	 	 
	 

	 	Balu Balakrishnan






	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Date:   2/2/09 	/s/ Balu Balakrishnan
Canadian Certification in the Global Context

151

48

29

21 19

11

9

9

8

0

20406080

100120140160

CANADA USA Russia Finland Sweden Australia Norway Belarus Brazil 

millions of hectares certified

2011 Mid-Year 

Sources: www.certificationcana www.fsc.org as of Jun www.pefc.org as of Ju
# S^^-«

- m<

r M-X'?-' ^ Ps.C«^ ^ S£/\ W PARNELL . GOVERNO R 4111 1 AVIATIO N AVENU E P O Bo x 19690 0 ANCHORAGE , ALASK A 99519-690 0 OFFIC E O F TH E COMMISSIONE R FAX : PHONE : (907 ) 269-073 0

(907 ) 269-048 9 Februar y 6,201 2

• • ^ C ' 3 '.^• ' Mr . Denni s J . DeVan

y Chief , Essentia l Air Servic e Divisio n Officeo f Aviatio n Analysi s ^ ' U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jersey Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Dea r Mr , DeVany : W e understan d th e curren

t Essentia l Air Servic e (EAS ) contrac t

fo r Ada k wit h Alask aAirline s expire s o n Jun e 30,201 2 and th e U S Departmen t o f Transportatio n (US-DOT ) wil l b e issuin g a Reques t For Proposal s (RPP ) withi n th e next fe w weeks . W

e wan t to tak e thi s opportunit

y t o commen t eve n befor e yo u issu e a

n RF P an d ask tha t you include som

e o f ou r comment s i n you

r RFP . The Stat e o f Alaskai s astron g supporte r o f th e EA S progra

mbecaus e otj r

lac k o f surfac e infrastructur

e make s reliabl e acces s t o th e nationa l transportatio n syste

malmos t impossibl e fo

r som e communities . I

n thi s regar

d th e EA S progra

mi s criticall y importan

t t o Alaska . W

e believ e th e characte

r o f ou r overal l transportatio n syste man d th e responsibl e wa

y w e wor k wit h th e US

DOT ftilly meet s th e spirit

o f th e program . I n orde r t o preserv e th e EA S progra mlon g into th e future , we suppor t th e pruden

t applicatio n o f the program . Give

n th e critica

l rol e EA S fill s i

n Alaskaand th e budgetar

y pressure s th e progra mfaces , w e conside

r i t increasingly importan

t t o tak e aharde r look a t wha t constitute s a reasonabl e level o f

servic e t o each o f th e small communitie s tha t receive s EAS , includin g thos e in Alaska . Ada k i s agood exampl e o f

acommtmit

y tha t need s th e EA S program . Ada k i s almos t 1,20 0 mile s fromAnchorag e an d subject t o th e notoriously ba

d Aleutia n weather . Th

e Stat e strongly support s EAS servic e t

o thi s remot

e Aleutia n Islan d community , wher

e EA S provide s th e onl

y reliabl e acces s t

o th e community . The air

servic e provide d by EA S i s criticall y importan t t o th e community' s ver

y survival . I n th e pas t US-DO T receive d proposal s froma t leas t tw o ai r carrier s fo r th e Ada k contract , an d th e Stat e typically supporte d th e proposa l preferre d b

y th e community . Howeve r th e time ha s

"Ge l Alask aMovin g ihroug h servic e an d infrastructure 'Mr . Denni s DeVan y ' Pag e 2 Februar y 6,201 2

com e fo r all o f u s t o conside r afres h wha t would b e th e mos t

cost-effectiv e and appropriat e options , which ma

y no longe r include je t

service . Than k you fo r th e opportunit

y t o commen t a t thi s earl y stag e i n th e process . I

f yo u hav e questions , d o not

hesitat e to contac t

m e a t 907-269-073 0 Sincerely , 

## / f / I Steve n D . Hatter , P.M.P. , CM . Deput y Commissione

r - Aviatio n

cc : Mar c Luiken , Commissioner , DOT&P F

"Ge l Alask aSlavin g lhr(.'iig h servic e an d infrasuitctme "
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 195 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 195

          To provide greater health care freedom for seniors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and Mr. Culberson) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To provide greater health care freedom for seniors.

    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 ``Seniors' Health Care Freedom Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. FACILITATING THE USE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTS UNDER THE MEDICARE 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 1802(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395a(b)) is 
amended by striking paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraphs (4) 
and (5) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.

SEC. 3. NO ELIGIBILITY CONDITION BASED ON REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN A 
              GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

    No persons otherwise eligible for old-age benefits under Social 
Security shall be denied such benefits because of their voluntary 
refusal to participate in any part of the Medicare program.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 11078 Summary Calendar

GREGORY D. ROWE , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. RUBEN GONZALEZ, State of Texas Judge; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; BRENDA H. DUMAS; PACE REALTY CORPORATION , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CV

- 655

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gregory D. Rowe moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal to challenge the dismissal of his civil complaint for failure to prosecute. For the following reasons, we gr ant Rowe’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal , dispense with further briefing, vacat e the district court’s judgment, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 9, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-11078 Document: 00513071423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2015No. 14

- 11078

2 Rowe is economically eligible to proceed IFP on appeal

. See Cars on v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Rowe has also raised a nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to whether the district court considered him to be economically ineligible for arbitrary or erroneous reasons and abused its discretion by d enying his motion for reconsideration of the order denying him leave to proceed IFP in the district court. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); Flowers v. Turbine Support Div

. , 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Thompson v. Drewry , 138 F.3d 984, 985

- 86 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court denied Rowe leave to proceed IFP based on his and his spouse’s combined income. However, Rowe asserted in his motion for reconsideration that h e did not have a spouse who lived with him and that his income was about to be lowered as he had reported in his IFP motion. He provided documents that substantiated these assertions. In addition, his assertion that he lived apart from his alleged

spouse was consistent with his underlying complaint about being denied housing with his future wife

. On the merits of the appeal, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 41(b). For the reasons stated above, the district court likely abused its discretion in ordering payment of the filing and administrative fees. Accordingly, the district court also abused its discretion in dismissing Rowe’s complaint for failure to prosecute. See Coleman v. Sweetin , 745 F.3d 756, 766 (5th Cir. 2014). MOTION GRANTED ; VACATED AND REMANDED. Case: 14-11078 Document: 00513071423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2015