alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. P67/336.

#### Service Cycle Supply Corp. *v.*United States, protests 66/13851, etc. (New York).

*892Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of padlocks over 1.5 inches but not over 2.5 inches in width similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EX-10.13


 Exhibit 10.13 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. 

AMENDED AND RESTATED INDUCEMENT AWARD PLAN 

April 4, 2018 
 This
Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated Inducement Award Plan, as amended (as amended, the “Plan”) is effective as of the date first set forth above, such
amendment being approved by the Board of Directors of Broadcom Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Plan. The Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 

	1.	The following will replace Section 2(k) of the Plan in its entirety: 


“(k) “Common Stock” means the common stock of the Company.” 

 

	2.	The following will replace Section 2(l) of the Plan in its entirety: 


“(l) “Company” means Broadcom Inc., a Delaware corporation.” 

 

	3.	All references to “ordinary shares” or other similar terms in the Plan shall refer to shares of the common stock of the Company. 


 

	4.	Except as provided in this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

 * * * *
*
Exhibit 31.1 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Douglas A. Myers, President of Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc.; 

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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2009
Exhibit 10.2


Avalon GloboCare Corp.


4400 Route 9 South, Suite 3100


Freehold, New Jersey 07728


 


April 3, 2018


 


Meng Li


c/o Avalon GloboCare Corp.


4400 Route 9 South, Suite 3100


Freehold, New Jersey 07728


 


Re:       Executive
Employment Agreement


 


Ms. Li:


 


Reference is hereby made
to that certain Executive Employment Agreement entered between Avalon GloboCare Corporation (the “Company”) and yourself
effective December 1, 2016 (the “Agreement”). In acknowledgment of your services to date and in order to properly compensate
you for your services going forward, we hereby agree to amend Section 3 of the Agreement to add the following paragraph (G):


 


Executive will
be eligible a bonus equal to 100% of the Base Salary, which shall be payable upon the Company’s shares becoming listed
on a national securities exchange AND if the Board determines that additional equity funding is required, the Company’s closing
(whether at the time of listing or subsequent thereto) of a public offering of its equity, raising not less than $10,000,000 in
gross proceeds in the aggregate. If such conditions are fulfilled, or waived by the Board, the above bonus shall be payable
with the next payroll following the occurrence of the relevant event, subject to all applicable deductions required by law.


 


Please execute below agreeing to the above amendment.


 


Avalon GloboCare Corp.


 


 


By:/s/ Luisa Ingargiola


Name: Luisa Ingargiola


Title: Chief Financial Officer


 


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:


 


/s/ Meng Li


Meng Li
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 28, 2021

No. 04-21-00154-CV

IN RE Glenn H. KOTHMANN, and GHK Enterprises L.P.

From the County Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9268

Honorable Arnulfo C. Luna, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Relators have filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. This court believes a serious 

question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this 

court no later than May 13, 2021. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on April 28, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ______________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SCOTT DANIEL PUTNAM,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-00008-JLR-JPD

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Counts 1 through 5: Bank Fraud in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1344.

Count 6: Aggravated Identity Theft in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.

Count 7: Possession of Document Making Implements in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.

§ 1028(a)(5).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 6, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) A criminal background check reveals that defendant has been charged and

convicted on multiple occasions for forgery or attempted forgery, charged with identity theft on

more than one occasion, including repeat conduct shortly after arrest, and, therefore, is a

financial danger to the community.

(2) Defendant has a history of on-going substance abuse.

Case 2:06-cr-00008-JLR Document 11 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(3) Defendant has approximately twenty previous failures to appear in Court on his

record.

(4) Defendant’s criminal background check reveals three instances of violating the

terms of his probation.

(5) Defendant is a risk of flight and a danger to the community based on his previous

history.

(6) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions short of detention

that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings and that address

the danger to other persons or the community.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00008-JLR Document 11 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

February 28, 1961

No. 65199.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 59/22500 and 60/25156 (San Diego).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report
of Fresenius Kabi Pharmaceuticals Holding, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard J. Tajak, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2010 |  | /s/ RICHARD J. TAJAK   
|                     |  | Richard J. Tajak       
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
From: John Mietus

To: Finamore, Robert (OST) Subject: RE: POLL: Aeromexico Mexico City-Washington DC (scheduled, combination)

Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:05:59 PM

Attachments: AM exemption app MEX-IAD.pdf

Bob, I have completed the poll of U.S. carriers, and there are no objections. Best regards, John

From: John Mietus Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:55 AM To: 'carl.nelson@aa.com'; 'robert.wirick@aa.com'; 'sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com'; 'jeff.morgan@delta.com'; 'bkeiner@crowell.com'; 'lhalloway@crowell.com'; 'gmurphy@crowell.com'; 'dan.weiss@united.com'; 'jonathan.linde@united.com'; 'steve.morrissey@united.com'; 'howard.kass@usairways.com'; 'robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com'; 'patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com'; 'benjamin.slocum@usairways.com'; 'nssparks@fedex.com'; 'gbleopard@fedex.com';'jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com'; 'jcanny@amerijet.com'; 'anita.mosner@hklaw.com'; 'pmurphy@gghairlaw.com'; 'sharfst@usa3000airlines.com'; 'slachter@lachter-clements.com'; 'efaberman@wrf.com'; 'bob.kneisley@wnco.com'; 'jyoung@yklaw.com'; 'dkirstein@yklaw.com'; 'msinick@ssd.com'; 'agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com'; 'urskr@state.gov'; 'john.allen@faa.gov'; 'robert.finamore@dot.gov'; 'info@airlineinfo.com' Subject: POLL: Aeromexico Mexico City-Washington DC (scheduled, combination)

Dear all, attached please find an Aeromexico exemption application for Mexico City-Washington, DC scheduled, combination authority. A response with your carrier's position on the application will be greatly appreciated.

Best regards, John

POLL LIST: carl.nelson, robert.wirick@aa.com sascha.vanderbellen, jeff.morgan@delta.com bkeiner, lhalloway, gmurphy@crowell.com for United dan.weiss, jonathan.linde, steve.morrissey@united.com howard.kass, benjamin.slocum@usairways.com nssparks, gbleopard@fedex.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com + jcanny@amerijet.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com for UPS pmurphy@ggh-airlaw.com for USA 3000 sharfst@usa3000airlines.com slachter@lachter-clements.com for Astar efaberman@wrf.com ; bob.kneisley@wnco.com for Airtran robert.cohn, patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com for Frontier jyoung, dkirstein@yklaw.com for Spirit msinick@ssd.com for Alaska agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com for Ryan Int'l

_________________________John Mietus Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 6701 Democracy Blvd Ste 300 Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 (202) 747-5212 (240) 396-5362 fax john@mietuslaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not review, use, disclose, distribute or copy the information it contains; destroy this e-mail and notify the sender by reply e-mail or an e-mail to admin@mietuslaw.com

. Thanks.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

NIKOLAY N. OSOKIN, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 C05-1769RSL

 MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Clerk of Court, Bruce Rifkin:

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on November

3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Chief United

States District Court Judge. All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause

number C05-1769RSL and bear the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the

document. 

Dated this 5th day of December , 2005.

Bruce Rifkin, Clerk of Court

By s/ JUDITH A. NOTHERN 

Judith A. Nothern, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01769-RSL Document 10 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 1
Cas Wo. 7,633.

#### The KEARSARGE.

[See Case No. 7,702.]
H. Res. 636 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 7, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1908) to amend title 35, United States Code, 

to provide for patent reform. The first reading of the bill 

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 

9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the 

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for 

the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 

Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be con-
2 

•HRES 636 EH 

sidered as read. All points of order against the committee 

amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 

those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding 

clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 

amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 

offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 

against such amendments are waived except those arising 

under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 
3 

•HRES 636 EH 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1908 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 61577.

#### Davies, Turner & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 303947-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.104 State and Local Governments 1** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: srmjosephop@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:56:36 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary J. Fox

Farmington, MI 48334
From: sixpete@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:50:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kevin Peterson

Ferndale, WA 98248