alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.2(g)

                               January 31, 2000



  Steven C. Roberts
  76 Piper's Hill Road
  Wilton, CT 06897

  Dear Steve:

             This letter constitutes an amendment to the letter agreement
  between you and Modem Media . Poppe Tyson, Inc. (the "Company") dated December
  15, 1999 regarding benefits due you under certain circumstances as described
  below. The following language shall be added to the end of Section 2 of that
  letter agreement:

             "In addition, if the effective date of any such termination of your
       employment is 6 months or less from your next vesting date, an additional
       number of options will vest equal to (i) the total number of options that
       would have vested on your next vesting date, multiplied by (ii) a
       fraction, the numerator of which equals the number of months from the
       date of your last vesting and the effective date of your termination of
       employment, and the denominator of which is 12 ."

             Kindly indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing in the
  space provided below.

                                      Very truly yours,
                                      MODEM MEDIA.POPPE TYSON, INC.

                                      By:__________________________
                                      Name:
                                      Title:

  ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


  By:____________________________
             Steven C. Roberts

  Date:__________________________
<PAGE>

                                                          Exhibit (10)(iii)(9)



                             AMENDMENT NUMBER TEN
                                      TO
                                NORTHERN TRUST
                         EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

WHEREAS, The Northern Trust Company (the "Company") maintains the Northern Trust
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 1989
(the "Plan");

WHEREAS, amendment of the Plan is deemed desirable;

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the amending power reserved to the
Company under Section 13.1 of the Plan, and pursuant to the authority delegated
to the undersigned officer by resolutions of the Board of Directors dated
September 21, 1999, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of October 1, 1999,
in the following particulars:

1.  Subsection (1) of Section 2.1(o) is amended by replacing the term "Company"
with "Company or a Participating Employer".

2.  Paragraph 1 of Supplement #1 is amended by modifying the phrase "employees
of the Company" with "Employees of the Company or a Participating Employer".

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed on its
behalf by the undersigned officer this 20th day of December, 1999.
                                       ----


/s/ Martin J. Joyce, Jr.
-----------------------
Martin J. Joyce, Jr.
Senior Vice President
# aquifer-test_summary
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 233 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 233

 To authorize testimony and document production and representation of 
           Senate employees in People v. James Eugene Arenas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 1998

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony and document production and representation of 
           Senate employees in People v. James Eugene Arenas.

Whereas, in the case of People v. James Eugene Arenas, Case No. 98F2403, pending 
        in the Municipal Court for Fresno, California, testimony and document 
        production have been requested from Kelly Gill, an employee on the staff 
        of Senator Barbara Boxer;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or the production of 
        documents relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from 
        such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Kelly Gill, and any other employee from whom 
testimony or document production may be required, are authorized to 
testify and produce documents in the case of People v. James Eugene 
Arenas, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be 
asserted.
    Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Kelly Gill, and any other employee from whom testimony or document 
production may be required, in connection with People v. James Eugene 
Arenas.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Board of Directors of

Xenith Bankshares, Inc. 

Richmond,Virginia 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Xenith Bankshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (333-153118) ofour report dated March 31, 2010, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Xenith Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2009 and First Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2008, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which appear in the December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Xenith Bankshares, Inc.

/s/    Witt Mares, PLC 

Norfolk, Virginia 

March 31, 2010
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE MERLE RICHARD SCHMIDT,

Petitioner.

______________________ 

2014-101

______________________ 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:12-cv-00773-SGB, 

Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________ 

ON PETITION

______________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Merle Richard Schmidt petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the United States Court of Federal Claims 

to enter declaratory judgment. We consider whether 

Schmidt’s petition should be construed as a notice of 

appeal. 

Schmidt filed a complaint in the Court of Federal 

Claims seeking a declaratory judgment that he is the 

owner of a plot of land in Iowa. On June 28, 2013, the 

Court of Federal Claims entered judgment dismissing 

Case: 14-101 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2013
2 IN RE SCHMIDT

Schmidt’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Schmidt then 

requested the Court of Federal Claims to vacate the order 

dismissing his complaint. On August 15, 2013, the Court 

of Federal Claims denied that motion. On October 15, 

2013, Schmidt filed this writ of mandamus, asking for the 

same relief he sought in the Court of Federal Claims and 

arguing the merits of his appeal. 

In order to appeal a judgment of the United States 

Court of Federal Claims, the party seeking appeal must 

file notice that sets forth (1) the name of each party to the 

proceeding, (2) the judgment, order, or part, thereof being 

appealed, and (3) the name of the court to which the 

appeal is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Schmidt’s petition 

meets these requirements. In addition, his petition is 

timely if treated as a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B).

We conclude that the petition should be construed as 

a timely notice of appeal, and thus mandamus relief is not 

appropriate. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the 

Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (holding 

that a party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving 

that it has no other means of attaining the relief, such as 

by appeal); Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346

U.S. 379, 383 (1953) (stating “whatever may be done 

without the writ may not be done with it.”). 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because 

the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal. The 

clerk is directed to docket the case as an appeal. 

Case: 14-101 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2013
 IN RE SCHMIDT 3

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-101 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2013
No. 62288.

#### Holland Food Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 331039-K, 322205-K, and 58/1152 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of soup mixes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cresca Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 211, C. D. 1864), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00091-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Trial Court No. CV-18-1003

Before Bassel, Kerr, and Wallach, JJ

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE M.K., Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion 

for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 13, 2020
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 176-5 Filed 10/25/12 Page 18 of 18
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22651]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1812, 1813, 1816, 1819, 1823, 1832, and 1852

[Notice: (23-089)]
RIN 2700-AE71


Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Revision of the 
Definition of ``Commercial Item'' (NFS Case 2022-N003); Correction

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is 
correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on 
September 19, 2023. The document issued was to conform the NASA FAR 
Supplement (NFS) to changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
that reflect an updated ``commercial item'' definition pursuant to a 
section of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019.

DATES: Effective October 19, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew O'Rourke, NASA HQs, Office of 
Procurement Management and Policy Division, LP-011, 300 E Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20456-0001. Telephone 202-358-4560; facsimile 202-358-
3082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2023-17720 appearing on page 
64384 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, September 19, 2023, the 
following corrections are made:

PARTS 1812, 1813, 1816, 1819, 1823, 1832, and 1852--[Corrected]

0
1. On page 64385, in the second column, in amendment 2, the instruction 
``In parts 1812, 1816, 1819, 1823, 1832, and 1852 revise all references 
to ``Commercial Items'' to read ``Commercial Products and Commercial 
Services'' '' is corrected to read ``In parts 1812, 1813, 1816, 1819, 
1823, 1832, and 1852 revise all references to ``Commercial Items'' to 
read ``Commercial Products and Commercial Services.'' ''

    Dated: October 10, 2023.
Erica Jones,
NASA FAR Supplement Manager.
[FR Doc. 2023-22651 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00617-CV

Toni COMBEST and Mountain Laurel Minerals, LLC,

Appellants

v.

MUSTANG MINERALS, LLC,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-08-00144-CVL

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appeal of Appellant Mountain 

Laurel Minerals, LLC is DISMISSED, and the trial court’s judgment against Appellant Toni 

Combest is AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are taxed against Appellant Toni Combest.

SIGNED August 3, 2016.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 15

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Federal commitment to

biomedical research should be increased substantially over the next 5 years.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. FRIST, Mr. D’AMATO, and Mr.

SPECTER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Federal commitment to biomedical research should be increased substantially over the next 5 years.

Whereas heart disease was the leading cause of death for

both men and women in every year from 1970 to 1993;

Whereas mortality rates for individuals suffering from prostate cancer, skin cancer, and kidney cancer continue to

rise;

Whereas the mortality rate for African American women suffering from diabetes is 134 percent higher than the mortality rate of Caucasian women suffering from diabetes;

Whereas asthma rates for children increased 58 percent from

1982 to 1992;
2

•SRES 15 IS

Whereas nearly half of all American women between the ages

of 65 and 75 reported having arthritis;

Whereas AIDS is the leading cause of death for Americans

between the ages of 24 and 44;

Whereas the Institute of Medicine has described United

States clinical research to be ‘‘in a state of crisis’’ and

the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1994 that

‘‘the present cohort of clinical investigators is not adequate’’;

Whereas biomedical research has been shown to be effective

in saving lives and reducing health care expenditures;

Whereas research sponsored by the National Institutes of

Health has contributed significantly to the first overall

reduction in cancer death rates since recordkeeping was

instituted;

Whereas research sponsored by the National Institutes of

Health has resulted in the identification of genetic

mutations for osteoporosis; Lou Gehrig’s Disease, cystic

fibrosis, and Huntington’s Disease; breast, skin and prostate cancer; and a variety of other illnesses;

Whereas research sponsored by the National Institutes of

Health has been key to the development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning technologies;

Whereas research sponsored by the National Institutes of

Health has developed effective treatments for Acute

Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Today, 80 percent of

children diagnosed with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

are alive and free of the disease after 5 years; and
3

•SRES 15 IS

Whereas research sponsored by the National Institutes of

Health contributed to the development of a new, cost-saving cure for peptic ulcers: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Biomedical Re4 search Commitment Resolution of 1997’’.

5 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

6 It is the sense of the Senate that appropriations for

7 the National Institutes of Health should be increased by

8 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal years.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 FOR SISKON GOLD CORPORATION AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         421,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    253,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               822,979
<PP&E>                                      27,152,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,622,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          856,692
<BONDS>                                      8,747,492
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,603
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,976,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,622,571
<SALES>                                      1,794,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,845,091
<CGS>                                        2,051,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,580,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,052
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             334,779
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,012,316)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,012,316)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,012,316)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)

</TABLE>
Case No. 10,291.

#### In re NOOMAN et al.

[3 N. B. R. 267 (Quarto, 63).] 1

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

1869.

Bankruptcy — Objection to Discharge by Creditors — Mutilated Accounts.

1. Creditors objecting to discharge of bankrupt must prove their allegations.

2. The mutilation of a book of accounts by bankrupt may be explained.

[In the matter of Nooman & Connolly, bankrupts.]

J. G. Abbott and B. Dean, for creditors.

J. D. Ball, for bankrupts.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

LOWELL, District Judge.

The specifications in opposition to the discharge of these bankrupt partners, involve only questions of fact. The allegations are that they have concealed a part of their assets, and have concealed and multilated one of their books of account. The burden of proof is on the objecting creditors, and I am not satisfied that they have sustained it. The books appear to show a profit in the business, and if it was profitable and the stock is worth its cost, the assets ought to be much larger than they are; but it may be that the goods I depreciated during the eight months between the last account of stock and the bankruptcy; the bankrupts swear that they did depreciate, and there is no evidence to the contrary. It was argued, with a good deal of plausibility, that very few persons could be made out to be bankrupts by the mere inspection of the books.

The evidence shows a mutilation of one of the books, but it seems that all the outstanding accounts which it contained were transferred to another book, and there is no evidence that any fraud was done to the creditors by the change, but on the contrary there is proof tending to show that the ac- . counts were all collected as far as collectible. There was evidence that the bankrupts, whose business was to manufacture clothing for sale, ready made, changed their mode of doing business not long before the bankruptcy, by taking their cloth on consignment, as they called it, which I understand to be that they agreed with the wholesale houses that the property in the goods should not pass until they were paid for. They would have then an equitable title in the goods to the extent of the payments, and this title they should have disclosed to their assignee, and if it were shown that they *298had willfully failed to do this it might bar their discharge. But I do not understand that any such allegation is made or proved. It was said at the hearing, and there is nothing in the case to refute the assertion, that although these goods do not appear on the schedules, yet that the assignee was informed of the facts concerning them, and made such disposition as was proper of the bankrupts’ interest in this part of their property. Discharge granted.
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

ORDER VACATING

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BRIAN PLASKON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF

KING COUNTY d/b/a VALLEY MEDICAL

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0367RSL

ORDER VACATING ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On January 7, 2008, plaintiff filed his

opposition to defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees that, taken as a whole, exceeded 50 pages in

length but did not provide a courtesy copy of the documents for chambers. On January 11,

2008, the Court issued an order to show cause why plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failing

to comply with the Court’s prior orders. The order to show cause (Dkt. #54) is now vacated in

light of the receipt of the courtesy copy and plaintiff’s response. 

DATED this 16th day of January, 2008.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00367-RSL Document 55 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES NMCCA NO. 201800283

Appellee

Special Panel 4

v.

Calixto GONZALEZ, Jr. ORDER

Lance Corporal (E-3)

U. S. Marine Corps Remanding Case for

Appellant New Post-Trial Processing

Upon consideration of the record of trial, the Court determined that the 

convening authority (CA) failed to order the sentence executed in the CA’s action. 

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 17th day of December 2019,

ORDERED:

1. That the CA’s action, dated 12 September 2018, is hereby SET ASIDE.

2. That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for 

submission to an appropriate CA for preparation of a new CA’s action in compliance with R.C.M. 1107(f)(4). 

3. The record will be returned to this Court for completion of appellate review.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

Copy to:

NMCCA (51.4)

45 (CDR Roper)

46

02