alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.6

                 AMENDMENT OF 2000 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                              AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE
                              INSILICON CORPORATION
                        2000 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

      INSILICON CORPORATION ("inSilicon"), having established the inSilicon 2000
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan"), hereby amends the Plan, effective as
of September 30, 2000 as follows:

      1. Section 6.1(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to
      read as follows:

            (a) the closing price per Share on the date preceding the Grant Date
            for such option on the NASDAQ National Market System; or

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, INSILICON CORPORATION, by its duly authorized officer,
has executed this Amendment No.1 on the date indicated below.

Dated: December 18, 2000                      INSILICON CORPORATION


                                              By: /s/ William E. Meyer
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  William E. Meyer
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
#### § 160.115 Withholding of clearance.

Each District Commander or Captain of the Port may request the Secretary of the Treasury, or the authorized representative thereof, to withhold or revoke the clearance required by 46 U.S.C. App. 91 of any vessel, the owner or operator of which is subject to any penalties under 46 U.S.C. 70036.

[CGD 79-026, 48 FR 35404, Aug. 4, 1983; 48 FR 39059, Aug. 29, 1983, as amended by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35531, June 30, 1998]
Healthcare Reform...Are We There Yet?!!

Sharon R Williams, 

Williams Jaxon Consulting, LLC

March 15, 2017

‹#›

The long and winding road...

Unknowns > Knowns

Regulatory/legislative resolution by new federal fiscal year

Healthcare industry reaction

State markets response

Implications for aging, disabilities and other HCBS

Medicare/Medicaid integrated care initiatives

‹#›

Healthcare Reform 2.0

Affordable Care Act modifications

Medicaid

Block grants

Federal funding reduced

State funding implications

2016 Medicaid Mega Rules

Medicare 

Alternative payment models

Dual Demonstrations

Medicare Advantage

???

‹#›

Continued Emphasis on Quality/Performance Outcomes 

Triple Aim

Improved quality outcomes

Better consumer experience with healthcare system

Reduction of healthcare costs

‹#›

Implications for Healthcare Industry

Individual Mandate or Surcharge

Cost containment remains a key priority

Continuous Quality Improvement

More flexible benefit packages

Stabilization in Exchange markets

Medicare/Medicaid policy/funding

Taxes decreased

‹#›

Key Industry InitiativesIntegrated Care

Dual demonstrations

ACO performance

Medicaid managed care expansion, including MLTSS

Growth in Medicare Advantage enrollment

Payment reform

More industry recognition of the value of Social Determinants of Health (SDOH)

‹#›

Implications for YOU!

Utilize regional/state healthcare market trends to re set marketing plans

Increase in pressure to contain costs − opportunity for more preventative services

Advocacy/Education is critically important

Potential Medicaid funding reductions 

Eligibility limitations

Benefit reductions

Dollars redirected to other state services

‹#›

Keep Hope Alive!!

Stay informed about issues

NRCNA is a great resource

Advocate for person-centered policies local/federal 

Tell compelling stories backed up with solid data

Identify/fortify with stakeholders

‹#›

THANK YOU!!!

Sharon R. Williams

Chief Executive Officer

Williams Jaxon Consulting, LLC

sharonr.williams@comcast.net

313-516-3326

‹#›

# image2.gif

# image3.png

# image4.jpg

# image5.jpg

# image6.jpg

# image7.png

# image8.png

# image9.jpeg

# image10.jpg

# image11.png

# image1.emf
CERTIFICATIONS

|Exhibit 31.1 | Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of   the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) under the Securities   Exchange Act of 1934
|------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|I, David Sutton, certify   that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                

|                 | By: | /s/ DAVID SUTTON         
|---------------- | --- | -------------------------
|                 |     |                          
|March   20, 2005 |     | David   Sutton,          
|                 |     | Chief   Executive Officer
§ 151.09 Applicability. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, §§ 151.09 through 151.25 apply to each ship that— ( 1 ) Is operated under the authority of the United States and engages in international voyages;
( 2 ) Is operated under the authority of the United States and is certificated for ocean service;
( 3 ) Is operated under the authority of the United States and is certificated for coastwise service beyond three nautical miles from land;
( 4 ) Is operated under the authority of the United States and operates at any time seaward of the outermost boundary of the territorial sea of the United States as defined in § 2.22(a)(2) of this chapter; or
( 5 ) Is operated under the authority of a country other than the United States while in the navigable waters of the United States, or while at a port or terminal under the jurisdiction of the United States.
( b ) Sections 151.09 through 151.25 do not apply to— ( 1 ) A warship, naval auxiliary, or other ship owned or operated by a country when engaged in noncommercial service;
( 2 ) A Canadian or U.S. ship being operated exclusively on the Great Lakes of North America or their connecting and tributary waters;
( 3 ) A Canadian or U.S. ship being operated exclusively on the internal waters of the United States and Canada; or
( 4 ) Any other ship specifically excluded by MARPOL 73/78. Note to § 151.09 ( b
):
The term “internal waters” is defined in § 2.24 of this chapter.
( c ) Sections 151.26 through 151.28 apply to each United States oceangoing ship specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section which is— ( 1 ) An oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above or other ship of 400 gross tons and above; or
( 2 ) A fixed or floating drilling rig or other platform, when not engaged in the exploration, exploitation, or associated offshore processing of seabed mineral resources.
( d ) The requirements of §§ 151.26 through 151.28— ( 1 ) Do not apply to— ( i ) The ships specified in paragraph (b) of this section; and
( ii ) Any barge or other ship, which is constructed or operated in such a manner that no oil in any form can be carried aboard.
( 2 ) Are considered to be met if a U.S.-flag vessel holds a USCG-approved vessel response plan and provides evidence of compliance with 33 CFR part 155, subpart D or J requirements.
( e ) Section 151.26(b)(5) applies to all vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and operating in Antarctica.
[CGD 88-002, 54 FR 18404, Apr. 28, 1989, as amended by CGD 88-002A, 55 FR 18582, May 2, 1990; CGD 93-030, 59 FR 51338, Oct. 7, 1994; CGD 97-015, 62 FR 18045, Apr. 14, 1997; USCG-2006-25150, 71 FR 39209, July 12, 2006; USCG-2007-27887, 72 FR 45904, Aug. 16, 2007; USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35013, June 19, 2008; USCG-2008-1070, 78 FR 60120, Sept. 30, 2013]
J~~~ eo srqr

~

s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Z ~

w WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Q 

o= 

qC PROS'G~` 

J. R. Stroble 

Director, National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

Department of Energy 

P.O. F3ox 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

JUL 2 6 2011 OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

We received your letter dated July 22, 2011, requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft recertification memo the Carlsbad Field Ottice 

(CBFO) plans to issue to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Hanford Site. We 

concur with the draft recertification memo to recertify Hanford's waste characterization progratn 

for the contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste. 

In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583), on 

Deceniber 21, 2010, EPA approved Hanford's CH TRU waste characterization program (See 

EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4-138). 

The EPA limitations applicable to the characterization of CH TRU waste are appropriately 

included in Attachment 4 of the draft recertification memo. The waste characterization 

equipment, procedures and proeesses mentioned in the Hanford draft recertification menio are 

consistent with EPA's existing Hanford-CCP specific baseline and Tier 1 approvals. 

Thatlk you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft recertification memo for 

Hanford-CCP. lf you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 202-343-9462. 

Sincerely, 

Rajani Joglekar 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Internet Address (URL) • http:!/www.epa.gov 

RecycledlRecyclable • Printed wfth Vegetable OII Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
cc: (Electronic Distribution) 

Ed Ziemianski, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP 

Court Fesmire, CBFO NTP 

Randy Unger, CBFO QA 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA 

Site Documents, CBFO 

Tom Peake, EPA 

Raymond Lee, EPA
Officer Resignation and Termination of Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 OFFICER RESIGNATION AND TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Officer
Resignation and Termination of Employment Agreement (this “Resignation / Termination”) is entered into effective as of June 30, 2012 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Oxford Resources GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (“Company”), and Thomas T. Ungurean (“Executive”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, Company and Executive hereby agree as set forth below. 

1. Officer Resignation. Executive hereby resigns all positions as an officer of Company and all affiliates of
Company, including without limitation his position as Senior Vice President, Equipment, Procurement & Maintenance of Company and all such affiliates, and Company hereby accepts such resignation. 

2. Termination of Employment Agreement. Company and Executive agree to the termination of and hereby terminate the
Employment Agreement between them executed on June 18, 2010 and effective as of July 19, 2010 (the “Employment Agreement”), without any further rights or obligations thereunder on the part of either Company or Executive, except only that,
as provided in Section 8.11 of the Employment Agreement, the provisions of Article 5 (PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION), Article 6 (NON-COMPETITION OBLIGATIONS), Article 7 (NONDISPARAGEMENT) and Article 8 (MISCELLANEOUS) of the Employment
Agreement shall survive such termination of the Employment Agreement and continue thereafter in full force and effect. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Resignation / Termination effective as of the Effective Date. 
  

									
	Company:	 		 		 	Executive:
				
	OXFORD RESOURCES GP, LLC	 		 		 	
					
	By:	 	     /s/ Charles C. Ungurean
	 		 		 	     /s/ Thomas T. Ungurean

		 	    Charles C. Ungurean	 		 		 	    Thomas T. Ungurean
		 	    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 110.80b Marquette Harbor, Marquette, Mich.

The area within Marquette Harbor beginning at latitude 46°32′38′′ N., longitude 87°22′46′′ W.; thence to latitude 46°32′37′′ N., longitude 87°22′54′′ W.; thence to latitude 46°32′33′′ N., longitude 87°22′54′′ W.; thence to latitude 46°32′33′′ N., longitude 87°22′46′′ W., thence to point of origin.

Note:

An ordinance of the City of Marquette authorizes the Harbormaster to direct the location and length of time any watercraft may anchor in this area.

[CGD 79-018, [44 FR 50040](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-50040), Aug. 27, 1979]
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

YORK TELECOM CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1598

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00489-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay 

Griggsby.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DANIEL JOSEPH DONOHUE, Polsinelli, PC, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

WALTER A.I. WILSON. 

 ELIZABETH ANNE SPECK, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. 

Also represented by CHAD A. READLER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 January 10, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
#### § 151.2000 Purpose and scope.

This subpart implements the provisions of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4701-4751), as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
##### 



Exhibit 15.1 April 27, 2005 Alexanders, Inc,.
210 Route 4 East
Paramus, New Jersey Attention of: Dr. Richard West, Chairman of the Audit Committee We have made reviews, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Alexanders,
Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report
dated April 27, 2005; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, is incorporated by reference in Amendment No. 3
to Registration Statement No. 33-62779 on Form S-3. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act
of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and
11 of that Act. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KEANNA MUELLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2947

[June 16, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Kathryn Nelson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562020CT000960.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and MaryEllen M. 

Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
June 4, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KHYATI UNDAVIA, MINU RX, LTD., AND MINU G P, LLC, Appellant s

NO. 14

- 15

- 00378

- CV V.

AVANT MEDICAL GROUP , P.A. D/B/A INTERVENTIONAL SPINE
ASSOCIATES AND BRETT L. GARNER D/B/A ALLIED MEDICAL

CENTERS , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an interlocutory permissive appeal from a partial summary judgment order in favor of appellee s , Avant Medical Group, P.A. d/b/a Interventional Spine Associates and Brett L. Garner d/b/a Allied Medical Centers, signed, April 24, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. The record
shows that the requirements for a permissive appeal pursuant to Section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code have not been satisfied. Accordingly, we deny the petition and DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. We order appellant s , Khyati Undavia, Minu RX, Ltd. , and MINU GP, LLC, joi ntly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 138.100 How to calculate a total applicable amount. The total applicable amount is the sum of the OPA 90 applicable amount determined under paragraph (a) of this section plus the CERCLA applicable amount determined under paragraph (b) of this section. ( a ) *OPA 90 applicable amount.* The applicable amount under OPA 90 is equal to the applicable limit of liability determined as provided in subpart B of this part.
( b ) *CERCLA applicable amount.* The applicable amount under CERCLA is determined as follows: ( 1 ) For a vessel over 300 gross tons carrying a hazardous substance as cargo, and for any vessel covered under § 138.110(c)(3) or (d)(2)(ii) (calculation of CERCLA applicable amounts for financial guarantors and self-insurers), the greater of $5,000,000 or $300 per gross ton.
( 2 ) For any other vessel over 300 gross tons, the greater of $500,000 or $300 per gross ton.
( c ) *Amended applicable amounts.* If an applicable amount determined under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section is amended by statute or regulation, the COFR Operator must establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility in an amount equal to or greater than the amended total applicable amount, as provided in § 138.240(a).
( d ) *OPA 90 and CERCLA applicable amounts and limits of liability.* The responsible parties are strictly, jointly and severally liable, for the costs and damages resulting from an incident or a release, but together they need only establish and maintain an amount of financial responsibility equal to the single limit of liability per incident or release. Only that portion of the evidence of financial responsibility under this subpart with respect to— ( 1 ) OPA 90 is required to be made available by a guarantor for the costs and damages related to an incident where there is not also a release; and
( 2 ) CERCLA is required to be made available by a guarantor for the costs and damages related to a release where there is not also an incident. A guarantor (or a self-insurer for whom the exceptions to a limitations of liability are not applicable), therefore, is not required to apply the entire amount of financial responsibility to an incident involving oil alone or a release involving a hazardous substance alone.
#### Chapman *v.*Jewett.

*(Supreme Court of Appeals of*Virginia,

*Feb. 20, 1896.)*

[24 S. E. Rep. 261.]

Authority to Sell Land — Contract to Convey.

Verbal authority to sell land confers no power to execute a contract to convey.

Error to circuit court, Chesterfield county.

Action of unlawful entry and detainer by Mary Jewett against William Chapman. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Tucker & Ingram*and *Edgar*Allan, for plaintiff in error.

*J. H.*Webb-Piploe, for defendant in error.

Riely, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is only necessary to consider a single question in this case as upon its determination all others, as well as the merits of the controversy itself, depend : Did the county court err in refusing to admit as evidence before the jury on the trial of the case an alleged contract of sale of the land in controversy from Hatcher’s heirs to Isabella Chapman, through whom the plaintiff in error claims ? The contract referred to was not signed by the Hatcher heirs for themselves, but was signed for them by J. Thompson Brown & Co., real-estate agents, *337who claimed that they had authority from the said heirs to sell the land. It was clearly inadmissible as evidence until the foundation was laid for its introduction by proof of authority on the part of the agents to make the sale and sign the contract for their principals. It was not pretended that they had any written authority to this end, but evidence was introduced tending to show that they had been verbally authorized by Mary C. Hatcher, in behalf of herself and brother, who were the only heirs, to sell the land. This was strenuously denied by Miss Hatcher ; but, assuming that they were authorized by her to sell the land, such authority, without more, amounted only to the right to find for her a purchaser who was willing to give the price she asked for the land, and to bring them together. It did not authorize them to execute or sign a contract of state that would bind her and her brother, and which Isabella Chapman could enforce. Halsey v. Monteiro (decided at the present term) 24 S. E. 258, and the authorities there cited. The alleged contract of sale was therefore rightly excluded.

Under the authority claimed by J. Thompson Brown *&*Co., even if given, they would only be special, not general, agents; and any one dealing with such an agent must inquire and look to his instructions and authority. If the agent has exceeded his authority, he who dealt with him has done so at his peril. Halsey v. Monteiro, supra. There was no pretense of a ratification of the alleged contract of sale, but it was repudiated by Miss Hatcher the day after it was signed, and as soon as she heard of it. The determination of its inadmissibility as evidence is fatal to the pretensions of the plaintiff in error, and renders unnecessary the consideration of the other questions raised. The judgment of the circuit court of Chesterfield county must therefore be affirmed.
§ 158.220 Ports and terminals loading more than 1,000 metric tons of oil other than crude oil or bunker oil. The reception facility for an oil loading port or terminal that loads a daily average of more than 1,000 metric tons (1,100 short tons) of oil other than crude oil or bunker oil to oceangoing tankers must have the capacity for receiving— ( a ) Oil residue from on-board fuel and lubricating oil processing in the amount of 10 metric tons (11 short tons);
( b ) Bilge water containing oily mixtures in the amount of 10 metric tons (11 short tons) or 2 metric tons (2.2 short tons) multiplied by the daily vessel average, whichever quantity is greater;
( c ) Ballast water containing oily mixtures in the amount of 30% of the deadweight tonnage of the largest of the oceangoing tankers loading oil other than crude oil or bunker oil, at the port or terminal, that do not have CBT or SBT meeting part 157 of this chapter, multiplied by one or the daily vessel average, whichever quantity is greater; and
( d ) Oil cargo residue in the amount of 0.2% of the total cargo capacity of the largest of the oceangoing tankers loading oil other than crude oil or bunker oil, at the port or terminal, multiplied by one or the daily vessel average, whichever quantity is greater.
[CGD 78-035, 50 FR 36793, Sept. 9, 1985, as amended by CGD 85-010, 52 FR 7764, Mar. 12, 1987; USCG-2000-7641, 66 FR 55574, Nov. 2, 2001]