alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.12

                            AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
                            ----------------------


This Amendment to Agreement (the "Amendment") is made as of the 29th day of
April, 2003, by and between Health Care Investment Visions, LLC ("HCIV") and
Lifen, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Parties" or "Party."


                                   RECITALS:

     1. Parties entered into an Agreement dated as of January 2, 2003 whereby
        HCIV agreed to perform certain services for the benefit of Lifen, Inc.
        in exchange for payment in the form of Lifen, Inc.'s common stock.

     2. Parties now mutually desire to terminate this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreement herein
and in Agreement dated January 2, 2003, it is hereby agreed as follows:

       This Agreement will be terminated as of April 29, 2003.  Both Parties
       acknowledge that all consideration due to one another has been rendered
       in full, and that there is no further obligation on the part of HCIV to
       render services to Lifen, Inc. and that no compensation is due to HCIV
       for any past services that might have been rendered to Lifen, Inc.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed and delivered as of the day and year first written above.


HEALTH CARE INVESTMENT VISIONS, LLC


By:	/s/ Joseph M. DeLuca
--------------------------------------------
Name:	Joseph M. DeLuca, MA, FACHE
Title:	Chief Executive Officer


LIFEN, INC.
A Delaware Corporation

By:	/s/ James D. Durham
--------------------------------------------
Name:	James D. Durham
Title:	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
[No. 49452-0-I.

Division One.

October 21, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. K.C., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-8-00921-6, James D. Cayce, J., entered October 12, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Federal Government Spending and Employment /
              - 13.2  Federal Government Spending and Employment—Federal Expenditures on Housing and Food Assistance

## Table 13.2: Federal Government Spending and Employment—Federal Expenditures on Income Maintenance Programs

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
iD STq 7 . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX ‘L PHQ 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 95105-3901

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

### Mr. Marc Macarro 

## DEC 0 1 t 

## 2014 Tribal Chairman Pechanga Band ofLuiseño Mission Indians P.O. Box 1477 Temecula. Calithrnia 92593 Dear Chairman Macwro: I am pleased to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the Pechanga Band ofLuiseño Mission Indians (Pechanga) is eligible fortreatment in the same manner as a state (TAS) with respectto those provisions ofClean Air Act (CAA) Sections 110 and 175A necessary to submit and implement a maintenance plan in support ofaredesignation requestunder CAA section 107(d) forthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard. I would like to commend Pechanga’s effiwt in working collahoratively with EPA to produce the application which resulted in tinal approval. We look forward to continuing our worktogetherto protect and enhance air quality on the Pechanga Reservation. Ifyou have any questions, please do nothesitate to give me a call, or have your staffcontact Ken Israels ofthe AirDivision at (415) 947-4102. Sincerely,

Jared Blumenfeld
cc: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor ofCalifornia Mary Nichols, Chair, CaliforniaAir Resources Board Matt Rodriquez, Secretary, California EPA Kelcey Stricker, Environmental Director, Pechanga Band Barry R. Wallerstein, APCO, South Coast AQMD Robert Kard, APCO, San Diego APCD i3jorn Fredrickson, Recreation and Lands Officer, PalomarRanger District. ClevelandNational Forest

Printed on Recycled Paper
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-20737

Summary Calendar

_____________________

ANDREA ESTELLE; SHERRYE REESE; ROXANE MIHEALSICK,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-4346)

_________________________________________________________________

May 20, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Andrea Es telle, Sherrye Reese, and Roxane Mihealsick appeal

the adverse summary judgment in their action under the Railway

Labor Act (RLA). (Because the district court held that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction over the RLA claims, it also dismissed

the state law claims. The latter are not in issue.)

We review a summary judgment de novo

, applying t he same

standard as the district court. E .g.

, OHM Remediation Services v.

Evans Cooperage Co., Inc.

, 116 F.3d 1574, 1579 (5th Cir. 1997).

Such judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and

.. . the moving party is entitled to a- 2 -

judgment as a matter of law." F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(c).

Estelle and Reese claim that Continental violated 45 U.S.C. §

152 by removing them from service as flight attendants for 11 days

with pay, because they actively opposed a new collective bargaining

agreement; Mihealsick claims that, for the same reason, other

actions by Continental forced her t o return from the training

center to service as a flight attendant. The district court

granted su mmary judgment because plaintiffs’ claims fell within

none of the exceptions to the System Boar d of Adjustment’s

exclusive jurisdiction over disputes under RLA collective

bargaining agreements. Pursuant to our de novo review of the record

and our review of the briefs, summary judgment was proper, for

essentially the reasons stated by the district court. S ee Estelle

v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. H-96-4346, memorandum and order

(July 16, 1998).

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00327-CR

Pedro Dominguez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1219608D)

May 30, 2013

Opinion by Justice Meier

Concurrence by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Bill Meier
§ 1960.19 Other Federal agency standards affecting occupational safety and health. ( a ) Where employees of different agencies engage in joint operations, and/or primarily report to work or carry out operations in the same establishment, the standards adopted under § 1960.17 or § 1960.18 of the host agency shall govern.
( b ) There are situations in which the head of an agency is required to comply with standards affecting occupational safety and health issued by a Federal agency other than OSHA. For example, standards issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Energy, or the General Services Administration may be applicable to certain Federal workplaces. Nothing in this subpart affects the duty of any agency head to comply with such standards. In addition, agency heads should comply with other standards issued by Federal agencies which deal with hazardous working conditions, but for which OSHA has no standards.
( c ) Although it is not anticipated that standards of other Federal agencies will conflict with OSHA standards, should such conflict occur, the head of the agency shall inform the other Federal agency and the Secretary so that joint efforts to resolve the issues may be undertaken. However, until conflicts are resolved, agencies shall comply with the more protective of the conflicting standards.
CERTIFICATION OF
                      PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, the undersigned, Derek L. Caldwell, who is the
President and Chief Executive Officer of Lincoln International Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended July 31, 2004, (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of ss.13(a) or ss.15(d) as applicable, of the Securities Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                /s/ DEREK L. CALDWELL
                                ---------------------------------------------
                                Name:  Derek L. Caldwell
                                Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
                                Date:  October 29, 2004
#### § 2.37 Effect of DOL support on Title VII employment nondiscrimination requirements and on other existing statutes.

A religious organization's exemption from the Federal prohibition on employment discrimination on the basis of religion, set forth in section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, is not forfeited when the organization receives direct or indirect Federal financial assistance from DOL. Some DOL programs, however, were established through Federal statutes containing independent statutory provisions requiring that recipients refrain from discriminating on the basis of religion. In this case, to determine the scope of any applicable requirements, recipients and potential recipients should consult with the appropriate DOL program office or with the Civil Rights Center, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-4123, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-6500. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to reach the number in the preceding sentence through telecommunications relay services.

[89 FR 15717, Mar. 4, 2024]
* 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 September 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30212 Summary Calendar

EDDIE JAMES JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MAIL ROOM STAFF, ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.

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

USDC No. 02-CV-1840

-------------------- Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eddie James Jones, Louisiana prisoner # 176162, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Jones argues that when the mail room staff at Allen Correctional Center opened his legal mail which had been returned as improperly addressed, they violated his right of access to the courts and hindered his effort to use a procedure for filingNo. 03-30212 -2- confidential grievances. The mail room staff apparently opened Jones’ mail when it was returned to the prison because it was improperly addressed. The prison mail staff did not violate Jones’ right of access to the courts by opening his incoming legal mail as prison officials may open incoming legal mail to inspect it for contraband. See Brewer v. Wilkinson , 3 F.3d 816, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, Jones did not allege that he was prejudiced in any way in a legal proceeding or prevented from filing another grievance because the mail room staff opened his legal mail. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996). Therefore, Jones has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. Jones’ appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of his complaint and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Jones is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### MALONE AND HOGAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, Appellant, v. BOSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 24258.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 2, 1967.

*363George W. Leonard, Jr, Sweetwater, Tex, R. H. Weaver, Big Spring, Tex, for appellant, Weaver & Ferguson, Big Spring, Tex, Mays, Leonard, Moore & Dickson, Sweetwater, Tex, of counsel.

W. B. Browder, Jr, Charles L. Tighe, Midland, Tex, for appellee, Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy & Laughlin, Midland, Tex, of counsel.

Before BELL, GODBOLD and DYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Boston Insurance Company brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking to have declared that it is not liable to Malone and Hogan Hospital Foundation, as insured, and to Forrest Gambill, an injured claimant, under a liability policy Boston had issued to the hospital, by reason of the hospital’s failure to give notice to Boston of injury to Gambill.

Boston moved for an instructed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence. The court was of the opinion that Boston was entitled to judgment as a matter of law but followed the recommended practice of submitting possible fact issues to the jury so that remand for a new trial might be obviated if on appeal this court found him in error.

The jury returned its verdict by answer to special interrogatories finding that the administrator of the hospital made a full, complete and fair investigation of the occurrence and on the basis thereof reasonably concluded that it was of such nature that it would not reasonably be expected to result in any claim or liability. The court then granted Boston’s motion for judgment n. o. v. The hospital has appealed.

We are in full accord with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set out by the trial court in its well-considered opinion, D.C, 269 F.Supp. 19. The evidence entitled Boston to judgment as a matter of law. The motion for judgment n. o. v. was properly granted.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12615]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Regulatory Guide; Issuance, Availability

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a revision to a guide 
in its Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to 
describe and make available to the public such information as methods 
acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the 
Commission's regulations, techniques used by the staff in evaluating 
specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the staff 
in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
    Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.8, ``Qualification and Training of 
Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,'' provides current guidance on 
qualifications and training for nuclear power plant personnel that is 
acceptable to the NRC staff. This regulatory guide endorses ANSI/ANS-
3.1-1993, ``Selection, Qualification, and Training of Personnel for 
Nuclear Power Plants,'' with certain clarifications, additions, and 
exceptions.
    Comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in 
guides currently being developed or improvements in all published 
guides are encouraged at any time. Written comments may be submitted to 
the Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
    Recently published regulatory guides are available on the NRC's web 
site at WWW.NRC.GOV> in the Reference Library under Regulatory Guides. 
Regulatory guides are also available for inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC. Single copies 
of regulatory guides may be obtained free of charge by writing the 
Reproduction and Distribution Services Section, OCIO, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to (301) 
415-2289. Issued guides may also be purchased may also be purchased 
from the National Technical Information Service on a standing order 
basis. Details on this service may be obtained by writing NTIS, 5285 
Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Regulatory guides are not 
copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them.

(5 U.S.C. 552(a))

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ashok C. Thadani,
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 00-12615 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Special Education /
              - 11.3a Special Education—Students  Ages 6-21 Served under IDEA, Part B, by Select Diagnostic Categories

## Table 11.3a: Special Education—Students Ages Six to 21 Served under IDEA, Part B, by Select Diagnostic Categories: Fall 2011

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8686]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Spanish Drawings From the Kunsthalle of Hamburg, 
Germany''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Spanish Drawings from the Kunsthalle of 
Hamburg, Germany,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or 
custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Meadows Museum, Dallas, Texas, from on or about 
May 25, 2014, until on or about August 31, 2014, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: April 1, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-07851 Filed 4-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```