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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5223

To provide that a spouse, former spouse, surviving spouse, or surviving

former spouse may qualify for retirement, survivor, and health benefits

under the Foreign Service Act if the Foreign Service participant is

disqualified for such benefits for reasons of misconduct or disloyalty

to the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 6, 1994

Mrs. MALONEY introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To provide that a spouse, former spouse, surviving spouse,

or surviving former spouse may qualify for retirement,

survivor, and health benefits under the Foreign Service

Act if the Foreign Service participant is disqualified for

such benefits for reasons of misconduct or disloyalty

to the United States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5223 IH

1 SECTION 1. RETENTION OF SPOUSAL RETIREMENT, SURVI2 VOR, AND HEALTH BENEFITS UNDER FOR3 EIGN SERVICE ACT IF PARTICIPANT DIS4 QUALIFIED DUE TO MISCONDUCT OR DIS5 LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Foreign Service Act of 1980

7 (22 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.) is amended by inserting after

8 section 833 the following new section:

9 ‘‘SEC. 834. RETENTION OF SPOUSAL RETIREMENT,

10 SURVIVOR, AND HEALTH BENEFITS IF PARTICIPANT DIS11 QUALIFIED DUE TO MISCONDUCT OR DISLOYALTY TO

12 THE UNITED STATES.—Notwithstanding any other provi13 sion of this subchapter, any retirement, survivor, health,

14 or other benefit which would be payable or available under

15 this subchapter to an otherwise qualified surviving spouse,

16 former spouse, or surviving former spouse except that the

17 participant is disqualified for such benefits under this Act

18 for official misconduct or disloyalty to the United States,

19 shall be paid and made available to any such spouse (in

20 the same manner as such payments would have been made

21 but for the participant’s disqualification) if such spouse

22 had no involvement in such misconduct or disloyalty to

23 the United States.’’.
3

•HR 5223 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any application

3 for benefits after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 87.477 Condition of grant for radionavigation land stations.

Radionavigation land stations may be designated by the FAA as part of the National Airspace System. Stations so designated will be required to serve the public under IFT conditions. This condition of grant is applicable to all radionavigation land stations.
§ 217.120 Specified activity and specified geographical region. ( a ) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the incidental taking of marine mammals during seabird research activities by Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue) and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf in the areas outlined in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The incidental taking of marine mammals by Point Blue may only occur in California on Southeast Farallon Island, Año Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes National Seashore in accordance with a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.126.
#### § 87.529 Frequencies.

Prior to submitting an application, each applicant must notify the applicable FAA Regional Frequency Management Office. Each application must be accompanied by a statement showing the name of the FAA Regional Office and date notified. The Commission will assign the frequency. Normally, frequencies available for air traffic control operations set forth in subpart E will be assigned to an AWOS, ASOS, or to an ATIS. When a licensee has entered into an agreement with the FAA to operate the same station as both an AWOS and as an ATIS, or as an ASOS and an ATIS, the same frequency will be used in both modes of operation.

[69 FR 52886, June 14, 2004]
#### §§ 95.593-95.699 [Reserved]
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a meeting on September 29, 2006, in Quincy, CA. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss residual funding and recommend how it might be distributed. The funding is available under the Title II Provisions of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. Several Cycle 6 projects not yet approved will be included in the discussion and could potentially be recommended to the Plumas (PNF) or Lassen (LNF) National Forest Supervisor for funding. Cost overruns for other projects will also be considered among other alternatives.

# DATES AND ADDRESSES:

The meeting will take place from 9-12 at the Mineral Building—Plumas/Sierra County Fairgrounds, 208 Fairgrounds Road, Quincy, CA.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Lee Anne Schramel Taylor, Forest Coordinator, USDA, Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500/159 Lawrence Street, Quincy, CA 95971; (530) 283-7850; or by E-Mail.                         *eataylor@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Agenda items for the September 29 meeting include: (1) Forest Service Update; (2) Residual funding availability; (3) Recommendations for funding distribution, potentially including current Cycle 6 projects not yet approved; and, (3) Review future meeting schedule and agenda. The meetings are open to the public and individuals may address the Committee after being recognized by the Chair. Other RAC information including previous meeting agendas and minutes may be obtained at                     *http://www.notes.fs.fed.us:81/​r4/​payments_​to_​states.*

Dated: August 30, 2006.

Robert G. Macwhorter,

Deputy Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 06-7482 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Lighting Science Group Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; and3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report.
 Date:
May 19, 2009
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Govi RaoName:
    
    Govi RaoTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
#### § 216.8 Enforcement officers.

Enforcement Agents of the National Marine Fisheries Service shall enforce the provisions of the MMPA and may take any actions authorized by the MMPA with respect to enforcement. In addition, the Secretary may utilize, by agreement, the personnel, services, and facilities of any other Federal Agency for the purposes of enforcing this MMPA. Pursuant to the terms of section 107(b) of the MMPA, the Secretary may also designate officers and employees of any State or of any possession of the United States to enforce the provisions of this MMPA.

[39 FR 1852, Jan. 15, 1974. Redesignated at 46 FR 61652, Dec. 18, 1981, and amended at 59 FR 50375, Oct. 3, 1994]
Case 16-24974 Doc 5 Filed 08/03/16 Entered 08/03/16 14:48:53 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-24974 Doc 5 Filed 08/03/16 Entered 08/03/16 14:48:53 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.21 What do these terms mean?

*Compatible use* means a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge. The term “inconsistent” in section 28(b)(1) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 185) means a use that is not compatible.

*Department* means U.S. Department of the Interior unless otherwise specified.

*National Wildlife Refuge System land* means lands and waters, or interests therein, administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production areas.

*Other lands* means all other lands, or interests therein, and waters administered by the Secretary through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are not included in National Wildlife Refuge System lands, e.g., administrative sites, research stations, fish hatcheries, and fishery research stations.

*Project Manager* means the officer in charge of the land under administration by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[34 FR 19907, Dec. 19, 1969, as amended at 39 FR 5490, Feb. 13, 1974; 42 FR 43917, Aug. 31, 1977; 44 FR 42976, July 23, 1979; 48 FR 31655, July 11, 1983; 51 FR 7575, Mar. 5, 1986; 65 FR 62483, Oct. 18, 2000]
# Fourth Court o f Appeals San Antonio, Texas

January 21, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00477

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF F.B.C.L., B.A.I.L., L.K.A.L., AND J.J.W.L, CHILDREN

From the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 01116 Honorable Laura Salinas , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On October 2, 2020, we ordered appellant to file a response by October 19, 2020 explaining why she failed to file her pro se notice of appeal in a timely manner. In that order, we explained that her notice of appeal had been due by September 8, 2020, and our records showed that she had filed a pro se notice of appeal on September 16, 2020

— within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner

, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). We further explained that without a reasonable explanation setting out why she failed to file her notice of appeal in a timely manner, the appeal would be dismissed. See id. ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3, 42.3(c). A copy of the orde r was sent to both appellant and her court

- appointed trial counsel, Ms. Sharon Thorne. In re J.O.H. , 283 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Tex. 2009) (providing that court

- appointed trial counsel’s duty of representation continues until relieved of that duty); see T EX

. F A M

. C ODE A NN

. § 107.013(a)(1) (setting out statutory right of indigent parents to counsel in parental rights termination cases).

When Ms. Thorne did not timely respond, we abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the following questions: (1) whether Ms. Throne had abandoned the appeal, (2) whether appellant was entitled to new counsel, and (3) whether Ms. Throne should be sanctioned. On January 8, 2021, the trial court held a hearing, and Ms. Throne appeared, but appellant did not. The trial court found that Ms. Thorne had been unable to contact appellant after several attempts and was unaware that appellant wished to appeal. The trial court concluded that Ms. Thorne had not abandoned the appeal and should not b e sanctioned. It also granted Ms. Thorne permission to withdraw and appointed new appellate counsel, Mr. Gerald Uretsky to represent appellant.

In light of the foregoing, we ORDER this appeal reinstated on the docket of our court and ORDER Mr. Gerald U retsky to file a response by January 29, 2021 to our order datedOctober 2, 2020 explaining why appellant failed to file her pro se notice of appeal in a timely

manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of January, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
p130184.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0184

Focus Ready Draft 1/14/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130184.eng

 

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (11/06/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P2B3T1 Linear: P1B2T1 // Branched: P2B3T1.

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 4 ppb.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

Page 2
p130184.eng

 

Page 3
p130184.eng

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0184

 

Page 4
p130184.eng

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0184

Page 5
p130184.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0184

 

Page 6
p130184.eng

Page 7
p130184.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8
p130184.eng

Page 9
###### Editorial Note on Part 300

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

#### § 300.129 Fishing year.

The fishing year for fishing in treaty waters begins on January 1 and ends on December 31.
EX-10.1.D



 



Exhibit 10.1(d)



AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, by and among MAPCO
Express, Inc., (“Employer”), Delek US Holdings, Inc. (“Delek US”) and Uzi Yemin (“Employee”),
entered into and effective as of May 1, 2004, and amended effective as of September 15, 2005,
February 1, 2006 and April 17, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”), is dated as of November 13, 2006.



     WHEREAS, Employee, Employer and Delek US are parties to the Employment Agreement; and



     WHEREAS, Employee, Employer and Delek US desire to delete the provision in the Employment
Agreement granting Employer a right of first refusal in the event that Employee seeks to sell to a
third party in a bona fide sale transaction all or any portion of the shares of Delek US common
stock issuable upon the exercise of the share purchase rights granted to Employee pursuant to the
Agreement.



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Amendment and
intending to be legally bound, Employee, Employer and Delek US agree as follows:



     1. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the text of Section 4(a)(7) in its
entirety.



     2. This Amendment to the Employment Agreement shall have effect as of the date hereof.



     3. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue unchanged and
in full force and effect.



     4. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original
but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.



[Signature Page Follows]




 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 4 to Employment Agreement as
of the date first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MAPCO EXPRESS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	                    /s/ Tony McLarty
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Tony McLarty 	 
	 	 	Title:  	V.P. of Human Resources 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	                    /s/ Kent Thomas
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Kent Thomas 	 
	 	 	Title:  	General Counsel 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DELEK US HOLDINGS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Tony McLarty
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Tony McLarty 	 
	 	 	Title:  	V.P. of Human Resources 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	                    /s/ Kent Thomas
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Kent Thomas 	 
	 	 	Title:  	General Counsel 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	                                       /s/ Uzi Yemin
 	 
	 	Uzi Yemin
#### RONALD N. IGNACIO *v.*THERESA MONTANA-IGNACIO

(AC 19350)

Foti, Schaller and Mihalakos, Js.

Argued February 17

officially released May 9, 2000

*Theresa Montana,*pro se, the appellant (defendant).

*Ronald N. Ignacio,*pro se, the appellee (plaintiff).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to modify custody and child support. The defendant claims on appeal, in essence, that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to award custody of the parties’ minor children to her and to modify the amount of child support that she is paying. The basis for the requested modification was her claim that the plaintiff was not looking out for the best interests of the children by, inter alia, taking them with him in his truck when he traveled to New York for work. The trial court denied the motion for modification, and the defendant brought this appeal.

“The well settled standard of review in domestic relations cases is that this court will not disturb trial court orders unless the trial court has abused its legal discre*648tion or its findings have no reasonable basis in the facts. ... As has often been explained, the foundation for this standard is that the trial court is in a clearly advantageous position to assess the personal factors significant to a domestic relations case, such as demeanor and attitude of the parties at the hearing. ... In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) *Simmons*v. *Simmons,*244 Conn. 158, 174-75, 708 A.2d 949 (1998).

“[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *Eldridge*v. *Eldridge,*244 Conn. 523, 534, 710 A.2d 757 (1998). “[W]e do not review the evidence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *Crowley*v. *Crowley,*46 Conn. App. 87, 90-91, 699 A.2d 1029 (1997).

We conclude, on the basis of the evidence presented to the trial court, that the court reasonably could have concluded as it did that the defendant failed to establish a basis for modification of custody and support. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for modification.

The judgment is affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5309

To amend the Central Valley Project Improvement Act to prohibit the

restoration of certain flows in the San Joaquin River.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 29, 1994

Mr. THOMAS of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Central Valley Project Improvement Act to

prohibit the restoration of certain flows in the San

Joaquin River.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER.

4 (a) RELEASES.—

5 (1) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary of the Inte6 rior may not make releases for the restoration of

7 flows between Gravelly Ford and the Mendota Pool

8 on the San Joaquin River as a measure to imple9 ment the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
2

HR 5309 IH

1 (106 Stat. 4706) without a specific Act of Congress

2 authorizing such releases.

3 (2) REPEAL OF REQUIREMENTS.—Section

4 3406(c) of the Central Valley Project Improvement

5 Act (106 Stat. 4721) is amended—

6 (A) by striking out ‘‘1996:’’ and all that

7 follows through ‘‘(2) in the course of’’ and in8 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘1996, in the course of’’;

9 and

10 (B) by striking out ‘‘and those of the San

11 Joaquin River under paragraph (1) of this sub12 section’’.

13 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

14 (1) RENEWAL OF EXISTING LONG-TERM CON15 TRACTS.—(A) Section 3404(c)(1) of the Central Val16 ley Project Improvement Act (106 Stat. 4708) is

17 amended by striking out ‘‘section 3406(c) and’’.

18 (B) Any provision in a contract that is subject

19 to section 3404(c)(1) of such Act that refers to pay20 ment of the charge mandated in section 3406(c) of

21 such Act, as such sections were in effect on the day

22 before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall

23 be null and void.

24 (2) RESTORATION ACTIVITIES.—Section

25 3406(b)(1) of such Act (106 Stat. 4714) is amended
3

HR 5309 IH

1 by striking out ‘‘Pool, for which a separate program

2 is authorized under subsection 3406(c) of this title;’’

3 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Pool;’’.

4 (3) SECTION HEADING.—Section 3406(c) of

5 such Act (106 Stat. 4721) is amended by striking

6 ‘‘SAN JOAQUIN AND STANISLAUS RIVERS’’ and in7 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘STANISLAUS RIVER’’.

8 (4) RESTORATION FUND.—Section 3407 of

9 such Act (106 Stat. 4727) is amended—

10 (A) in subsection (a), by striking out

11 ‘‘3406(c)(1)’’; and

12 (B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking out

13 ‘‘3405(f), and 3406(c)(1)’’ and inserting in lieu

14 thereof ‘‘and 3405(f)’’.

Æ
Document

Exhibit 10.1


Fifth Amendment to the
Starbucks Corporation Management Deferred Compensation Plan




The Starbucks Corporation Management Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated January 1, 2011 (the “MDCP”), is amended pursuant to Section 10.1 of the MDCP, effective as of January 1, 2021.  All provisions of the MDCP not amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.


The second sentence in subsection (a) of Section 3.3, Limitation on Deferrals, is amended in its entirety to read as follows: “In no event shall such maximum exceed 85%.”


*  *  *


Starbucks Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed as of this 4th day of June, 2020.


 
									
			Starbucks Corporation
			/s/ Ronald Crawford
			Ronald Crawford
			vice president, Global Benefits Total Rewards
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-12-00475-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF H.G.S. and S.L.S., Children

From the 325th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 325-387020-05

The Honorable Judith G. Wells, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

REVERSED as to Appellee Ralph W. Summers, III and judgment is RENDERED in favor of

Appellant Renee C. Mark. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellee Ralph W. Summers, 

III.

SIGNED October 31, 2013.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice