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



Exhibit 10.3





Amendment to Purchasing Agreement 
Agreement No. 4037 
Vendor: Cardiovascular Systems Inc 
Agreement Date: August 1, 2014 
Amendment Date: August 1, 2017 
 
 
 Effective as of the Amendment Date above,  HealthTrust Purchasing Group, L.P., a Delaware 
Limited Partnership having its principal place of business at 155 Franklin Road, Suite 400, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 (hereinafter referred to as "HPG"), and Cardiovascular Systems Inc (hereinafter referred to as “Vendor”), having its principal place of business at 651 Campus Dr, St. Paul, MN 55112-3495 hereby agree to amend their Purchasing Agreement dated August 1, 2014 for Atherectomy - Mechanical (the “Agreement”), as follows: 
 
1.Definitions.     The capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the meaning 
designated in the Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided herein. 
 
2.Term.  The term of the Agreement shall be extended, with the Expiration Date listed in Exhibit B being amended to be November 30, 2017.   
 
3.Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  


Signatures Follow on Next Page













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby indicate their agreement to the terms of this Amendment by the signatures of their authorized representatives.




	
		
	HealthTrust Purchasing Group, L.P., 
a Delaware limited partnership, by     
HPG Enterprises, LLC, a Delaware  
limited liability company, its general partner 


	VENDOR: Cardiovascular Systems Inc

	HealthTrust Signee: /s/ Anne Preston
	Vendor Signee: /s/ Jim Blooston



	HealthTrust Signee Name: Anne Preston
 
HealthTrust Signee Title: AVP
 
HealthTrust Signature Date: 9/29/2016
	Vendor Signee Name: Jim Blooston    
Vendor Signee Title:  Director - Strategic Accounts
Vendor Signature Date: 9/27/2016
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. Appendix 2), 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 the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 7, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         10 am to 2 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 1205, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anna Ramsey-Ewing, PHD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2220, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301 496-2550, ar15o@nih.gov.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 21, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-16615  Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 10-11080.

#### Garay v. Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
§ 0.504 Processing requests for declassification. ( a ) Responses to mandatory declassification review requests shall be governed by the amount of search and review time required to process the request. A final determination shall be made within one year from the date of receipt of the request, except in unusual circumstances.
( b ) Upon a determination by the bureau or office that the requested material originally classified by the Commission no longer warrants protection, it shall be declassified and made available to the requester, unless withholding is otherwise authorized under law.
( c ) If the information may not be declassified or released in whole or in part, the requester shall be notified as to the reasons for the denial, given notice of the right to appeal the denial to the Classification Review Committee, and given notice that such an appeal must be filed within 60 days of the date of denial in order to be considered.
( d ) The Commission's Classification Review Committee, consisting of the Managing Director (Chairperson), the General Counsel or his/her designee, and the Chief, Internal Review and Security Division, shall have authority to act, within 30 days, upon all appeals regarding denials of requests for mandatory declassification of Commission-originated classifications. The Committee shall be authorized to overrule previous determinations in whole or in part when, in its judgment, continued classification is no longer required. If the Committee determines that continued classification is required under the criteria of the Order, the requester shall be promptly notified and advised that an application for review may be filed with the Commission pursuant to 47 CFR 1.115.
[47 FR 53377, Nov. 26, 1982, as amended at 88 FR 21433, Apr. 10, 2023]
46911.

#### THOMAS v. LAWSON.

(380 SE2d 712)

Decided April 19, 1989.

J. D. Thomas, *pro se.*

*James L. Wiggins, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Hunt, Justice.

In this case, Thomas filed his complaint for mandamus to compel the superior court to rule on his petition for habeas corpus. Because it is a direct application to this court for an original writ, it is controlled by *Brown v. Johnson,*251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983), and must be dismissed.

*Petition dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366] 

                    Notice is hereby given that by petition dated May 3, 2000, Mr. David A. Lochbaum, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, has requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Hatch), owned and operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,                     *et al.*                     (the licensee). The Petitioner requested that the NRC ask questions, via a demand for information, of the licensee concerning the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems at Hatch. As the basis for the request, the Petitioner contended that Hatch is being operated outside its design and licensing bases because the material condition of piping, tanks, and other components of the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems is not being properly inspected and maintained.                 

A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, and is accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronics Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www/​nrc.gov). 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of June 2000. 

Roy P. Zimmerman, 

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00-16083 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# • RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 167 B LandDisposal Restrictions Phase IV - Hazardous Soils Treatment Standards and Exclusions 63 FR 28556-28753 May 

### 26,1998 (RCRA ClusterVIll, HSWA provisions) 

### SPA 19



# •

• t STATEANALOG IS: FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERALRCRAcrrAnON ANALOGOUS Sf ATEerr AnON LESS MORE WAC 173-303- EQUIV- STRIN- STRIN- BROADER ALENT GENT GENT IN SCOPE PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS SUBPART A-GENERAL DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE IN THIS PART 140(2)(a) 40 CPR 268 is add new paragraph; incorporated by 268.2(k) reference. The X definition of soil remaining checklist entries were deleted to save space and paper. 268.49(e)(2)(B) 140(2)(a) X End ofIER

May 26, 1998 - Page 1 of 7 CLl67B

- Revised: 1/15/99 Printed: 12119/01
§ 302-9.172 Under what conditions may my agency authorize transportation of a replacement POV to my post of duty? Your agency may authorize transportation of a replacement POV to your post of duty when: ( a ) You require an emergency replacement POV and you meet the following conditions: ( 1 ) You had a POV which was transported to your post of duty at Government expense; and
( 2 ) You require a replacement POV for reasons beyond your control and acceptable to your agency, such as the POV is stolen, or seriously damaged or destroyed, or has deteriorated due to conditions at the post of duty; and
( 3 ) Your agency determines in advance of authorization that a replacement POV is necessary and in the interest of the Government; or
( b ) You require a non-emergency replacement POV and you meet the following conditions: ( 1 ) You have a POV which was transported to a post of duty at Government expense;
( 2 ) You have been stationed continuously during a 4-year period at one or more posts of duty; and
( 3 ) Your agency has determined that it is in the Government's interest for you to continue to have a POV at your post of duty.
MAURO SOLIS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4492

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County

. Jonathan E. Sjostrom , Judge

.

Mauro Solis, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, RAY

, and MAKAR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
# Comments on: 19-1343: PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. [OPINION], Nonprecedential
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1308 Consideration of environmental assessments (EAs); findings of no significant impact. ( a ) Applicants shall prepare EAs for actions that may have a significant environmental impact (*see* § 1.1307). An EA is described in detail in § 1.1311 of this part of the Commission rules.
( b ) The EA is a document which shall explain the environmental consequences of the proposal and set forth sufficient analysis for the Bureau or the Commission to reach a determination that the proposal will or will not have a significant environmental effect. To assist in making that determination, the Bureau or the Commission may request further information from the applicant, interested persons, and agencies and authorities which have jurisdiction by law or which have relevant expertise. Note:
With respect to actions specified under § 1.1307 (a)(3) and (a)(4), the Commission shall solicit and consider the comments of the Department of Interior, and the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, respectively, in accordance with their established procedures. *See* Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 50 CFR part 402; Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, 36 CFR part 800. In addition, when an action interferes with or adversely affects an American Indian tribe's religious site, the Commission shall solicit the views of that American Indian tribe. *See* § 1.1307(a)(5).
( c ) If the Bureau or the Commission determines, based on an independent review of the EA and any applicable mandatory consultation requirements imposed upon Federal agencies (*see* note above), that the proposal will have a significant environmental impact upon the quality of the human environment, it will so inform the applicant. The applicant will then have an opportunity to amend its application so as to reduce, minimize, or eliminate environmental problems. *See* § 1.1309. If the environmental problem is not eliminated, the Bureau will publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (*see* § 1.1314) that EISs will be prepared (*see* §§ 1.1315 and 1.1317), or
( d ) If the Bureau or Commission determines, based on an independent review of the EA, and any mandatory consultation requirements imposed upon Federal agencies (*see* the note to paragraph (b) of this section), that the proposal would not have a significant impact, it will make a finding of no significant impact. Thereafter, the application will be processed without further documentation of environmental effect. Pursuant to CEQ regulations, *see* 40 CFR 1501.4 and 1501.6, the applicant must provide the community notice of the Commission's finding of no significant impact.
[51 FR 15000, Apr. 22, 1986; 51 FR 18889, May 23, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 28394, July 28, 1988]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 19, 2014

No. 04-14-00844-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.R.V., A.M.A.F. AND I.I.F., CHILDREN,

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Real County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-3094-DC

The Honorable Cathy O. Morris, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Robin Brame's notification of late reporter's record is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to December 22, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 10-11076.

#### Oliver C. *v.*Prince George’s County Department of Social Services.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
#### § 102-75.525 What responsibilities do landholding agencies have concerning properties to be used for educational and public health purposes?

Landholding agencies must cooperate to the fullest extent possible with representatives of ED or HHS in their inspection of such property and in furnishing information relating to the property.
#### § 128-1.105 Authority for JPMR.

The Department of Justice Property Management Regulations are prescribed by the Assistant Attorney General for Administration under authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 40 U.S.C. 486(c), 41 CFR 101-1.108, and 28 CFR 0.75(j).
Interim Decision *1820 

'MATTER OF MEDINA-OCEOA 

In Exclusion Proceedings 

A-17384381-2 

Decided by Board December 13, 1967 

Applicants, natives and citizens of M0Y100, who Ara ("timing to the United 

States for the purpose of demolishing a house that had been given them and 

taking the salvageable lumber back to Mexico to use in building homes for 

themselves, who will not be paid and will use no local labor in the operation, 

are admissible as nonimmigrant visitors for business within the purview of 

section 101(a) (15) (B), Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Ex°Lunen's: Act of 1952—Section 212(a) (20) [8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (20)] 

—Immigrants without visas. 

The cases are before us by certification. The special inquiry officer 

ordered applicants excluded as immigrants not in possession of the 

appropriate documents. We find applicants admissible as nonimmigrants. 

The applicants, Jose and his younger brother, Jesus, natives and 

citizens of Mexico, applied for admission on October 18, 1967 at 

San Ysidxo, California as nonimmigrants for business. They stated 

they had been given a house at Long Beach, California by the owner, 

that they intended to demolish it, take the debris to the local dump, 

and take the salvageable lumber back to Mexico where they planned 

to build homes for themselves. 

The applicants will demolish the building without the use of local 

labor and will transport the material in a truck belonging to Jesus. 

They will not be paid. This is the first venture of this type and 

applicants have no plans to engage in others. They expect to do 

the job in about six days and plan on making two trips to take all 

the material to Mexico. Both applicants are farmers; one does some 

carpentry also. 

The special inquiry officer held that the applicants' sole and principal purpose is to perform labor in the United States in competition 

with the local labor market. We however find that the primary purpose 

is to enter the United States to take back to Mexico property which 

547 
Interim Decision #1820 

has been given to them. The cases are similar to that in Matter of 

Cortez-Vasguez, 10 I. & N. Dec. 544, in which we found a Mexican 

national who entered the United States to collect wood on American 

ranchs for disposition in Mexico was admissible as a nonimmigrant 

visitor for business. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the decision of October 19, 1967 of the 

special inquiry officer be reversed and that the applicants be found 

admissible as nonimmigrant visitors for business.
#### Harold E. PHILHOWER, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below-Appellee.

No. 283, 2016

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: September 7, 2016

Decided: October 28, 2016

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Cr. ID 1410003902

GRANTED. AFFIRMED.
#### § 0.475 Applications for employment.

Persons who wish to apply for employment should communicate with the Associate Managing Director-Personnel Management.

(Secs. 4(i), 303(n), Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(n); 47 CFR 0.231(d))

[49 FR 13368, Apr. 4, 1984]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-41055 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus UVALDO VELA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-91-CR-304-1

- - - - - - - - - - July 13, 2001 Before JOLLY, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Uvaldo Vela-Rios (Vela) has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Vela has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4241 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4241

      To amend title 5, United States Code, to require the use of 
standardized claim forms under the health benefits program for Federal 
 employees, and to amend title 10, United States Code, to require the 
  use of such forms in the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
                          Uniformed Services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 1994

   Mrs. Schroeder introduced the following bill; which was referred 
 jointly to the Committees on Armed Services and Post Office and Civil 
                                Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title 5, United States Code, to require the use of 
standardized claim forms under the health benefits program for Federal 
 employees, and to amend title 10, United States Code, to require the 
  use of such forms in the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
                          Uniformed Services.

    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 ``Insurance Form Simplification Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 8902 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(o) A claim for payment or reimbursement under this chapter shall 
be submitted in a standard form (as prescribed in regulations under 
section 8913). Each contract under this chapter shall include 
appropriate provisions to carry out the preceding sentence.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to claims relating to benefits received after the 
end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 3. CIVILIAN HEALTH AND MEDICAL PROGRAM OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1079(h) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) A claim for payment or reimbursement under a plan contracted 
for under subsection (a) or section 1086 of this title shall be 
submitted in a standard form (as prescribed in regulations issued by 
the administering Secretaries). Each such contract shall include 
appropriate provisions to carry out the preceding sentence.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to claims relating to benefits received after the 
end of the 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

                                 <all>
```