alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42

                   AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") is
made this 25th day of September 2001, between PolyMedica Corporation, a
Massachusetts corporation (the "Company"), and Eric G. Walters (the
"Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to an Amended
Executive Employment Agreement dated as of April 1, 2001, as amended on June 8,
2001 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to further amend the
Employment Agreement as set forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the Employment
Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         1. Section 3.6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and the
following is substituted in lieu thereof:

         "3.6 Severance Pay. If at any time during the term of this Agreement
(including any Extended Employment Period) the Executive's employment is
terminated by the Company without cause (i.e., other than pursuant to Section
3.5 or Section 4 hereof), subject to the Executive's execution and
non-revocation of a severance agreement and release drafted by and satisfactory
to counsel for the Company, the Company shall continue to pay Executive at his
then current Base Salary for the remainder of the Employment Period or for
eighteen (18) months, whichever is longer (the "Severance Period"). Neither
party shall be entitled to any compensation or claim for good will or other loss
suffered by reason of termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Company's obligations under this Section 3.6 shall cease
immediately upon the payment by the Company to the Executive of the lump sum
payment described in Section 4.2(a)(i) of the Executive Retention Agreement,
dated as of September 1, 2000, by and between the Company and the Executive."

         2. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, all terms and
conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the day and year first above written.

                                                 COMPANY:

                                                     POLYMEDICA CORPORATION

                                                     By: /s/ Steven J. Lee
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     Name:  Steven J. Lee
                                                     Title:  Chairman and CEO

                                                     EXECUTIVE:

                                                     /s/ Eric G. Walters
                                                    ------------------------
                                                     Eric G. Walters
From: Michael.Pelan@lafarge-na.com Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:48 AM To: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov Cc: Michael.Pelan@lafarge-na.com; Laney, Michael N. Subject: Re: Sugar creek

You are correct. I meant to type wo/SNC R when referring to the Sugar Creek

data.

The intent was to show that uncontrolled PH/PC kilns can (and regularly do) operate much above the 2.5-3.0 lb/ton clin ker range that you suggested in the rulemaking.

Mike

Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov | 06/03/2009 04:23 PM | To: Michael.Pelan@lafarge-na.com cc: "Michael Laney" <mnl@rti.org> Subject: Re: Sugar creek

Table 1 in your comments show Sugar Creek data - but it is only for 2004 and 2005 and the text notes this is uncontrolled data. The previous page says you didn't start using SNCR until 2006. I can't find any data with SNCR? An I missing something?

Keith W. Barnett
USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243-02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919-541-5605 barnett.keith@epa.gov

Michael.Pelan@lafarge-na.com
To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

06/03/2009 03:19 PM cc Craig.Campbell@lafarge-na.com, "Steven C. Kohl" <skohl@wnj.com> Subject: Sugar creek

Keith:

I'm traveling back from Cali, but wanted to respond to your voice mail.

Sugar Creek does have an SNCR system and has operated it almost continuously for the past several years.

I refer you to our NSPS comments that show data for the Sugar Creek kiln

w/SNCR control.

Call me with any additional questions.

Mike

-------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 28, 2020

No. 04-19-00018-CV

THE MAYAN AT SAN MARCOS RIVER, LLC and City of Martindale, Texas,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN MARCOS, Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-0958-CV-A

Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The panel assigned to hear oral argument in this appeal is familiar with the facts and 

requests that the parties be prepared to address the application of sections 43.901 and 43.054 and 

former section 43.028(b) of the Texas Local Government Code to these circumstances. In 

addition to the arguments in the briefs, the panel is interested in the distinction, if any, between 

the terms “consent” and “petition” as they are used in those statutes. The panel further requests 

that the parties be prepared to discuss these statutes in light of the analysis in City of Murphy v. 

City of Parker, 932 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 1996) and City of Celina v. City of Pilot Point, No. 02-08-

00230-CV, 2009 WL 2750978 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 31, 2009, pet. denied).

Entered on this 28th day of February, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SWS Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth R. Hanks, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 1, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    KENNETH R. HANKS
|                       |  |  |  | Kenneth R. Hanks       
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
A89A2202.

#### J. C. LEWIS MOTOR COMPANY v. GILES.

(391 SE2d 19)

Cooper, Judge.

This appeal follows our grant of appellant’s application for interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss.

Appellee was injured when the car she was driving was struck by a car owned by appellant and driven by a 15-year-old youth. Appellee filed suit against appellant, a car dealership, alleging its agents and employees were negligent in leaving the keys to appellant’s car in a place accessible to the 15-year-old. In its answer, appellant averred that the collision had occurred after the car was stolen from appellant and raised the defense of failure to state a claim. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss based on OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6), which motion the trial court denied.

This case is controlled by a line of cases that includes *Price v. Big Creek of Ga., 191*Ga. App. 534 (382 SE2d 356) (1989) and *Dunham v. Wade,*172 Ga. App. 391, 392 (323 SE2d 223) (1984). “Mere ownership of an automobile involved in a collision may not be made the basis for holding an owner liable for the negligent operation of the automobile without showing that the defendant owner was guilty of some other negligent act which proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. [Cit.] . . . The fact that the keys were left in the unguarded automobile would not authorize a recovery against the owner for the injuries which were the result of its subsequent negligent operation by a thief. [Cits.] The persons immediately responsible will be held to full liability; but persons only so remotely connected with the injury can not be held. [Cit.]” Id.

Appellee maintains that the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss since there was evidence that vehicles had previously *473been stolen from appellant. However, this court has ruled in the cases cited above that negligence which results in the theft of a vehicle later involved in a collision is not sufficient negligence to authorize a claim against the owner. Since appellee alleged only that appellant was negligent in permitting the car to be stolen, appellee stated no claim against appellant, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted.

Decided February 12, 1990.

*Kennedy, Lewis, Smart & Brannon, Charles W. Brannon, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Thomas J. Mahoney, Jr.,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.*
Case 3:06-cv-05394-RJB Document 28 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05394-RJB Document 28 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 26 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 26

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the reappointment of Barber B. Conable, Jr. as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 26

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the reappointment of Barber B. Conable, Jr. as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the expiration of the term of Barber B. Conable, Jr. of New 
York on April 11, 1999, is filled by the reappointment of the incumbent 
for a term of six years, effective April 12, 1999.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 23, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                       EXHIBIT 2



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement of
AZCO Mining Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-56468 and 33-61434) of our report
dated August 29, 1996, on our audits of the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of AZCO Mining Inc. as of June 30, 1996 and 1995, and for the
years ended June 30, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which is included in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K.




Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Phoenix, Arizona
July 17, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1047 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1047

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel NORFOLK.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 1999

 Mr. Pickett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel NORFOLK.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) and 
section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel NORFOLK (United States official number 1077852).
                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000134

27-NOV-2018

08:51 AM
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 12248]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Art of Enterprise: Israhel van Meckenem's 15th-Century Print Workshop” at the Chazen Museum of Art, University of Wisconsin-Madison, in Madison, Wisconsin, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Nicole L. Elkon,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-23836 Filed 10-27-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
# L_2022325EN.01005201.xml

| 20.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 325/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 325/52

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/2500

of 13 December 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Keleméri bárányhús’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Keleméri bárányhús’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Keleméri bárányhús’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Keleméri bárányhús’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Keleméri bárányhús’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Keleméri bárányhús’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 December 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 315, 19.8.2022, p. 21.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 82 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 82

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 1999

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-62 is 
further amended by striking ``November 18, 1999'' in section 106(c) and 
inserting

``November 23, 1999''. Public Law 106-46 is amended by striking 
``November 18, 1999'' and inserting ``November 23, 1999''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
AGREEMENT BETWEEN C3 DIAMANTE, INC. AND CREE RESEARCH, INC.



 EXHIBIT 10.21 
  
 January 31, 1996 
  

C3 Diamante, Inc. 
 3104 Hillsborough St., Suite 216 
 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-5458 
 Attention: C. Eric Hunter, President 
  

	 	Re:	 	Invention Relating to [***] for 

 Growth of
Highly-Transparent Silicon Carbide Crystals 
  
 Gentlemen: 
  
 This letter will serve to evidence the
agreement between C3 Diamante, Inc. (“C3”) and Cree Research, Inc. (“Cree”) concerning the invention made by Cree employees relating to [***] for growth of highly-transparent silicon carbide crystals (the “Invention”).

  
 C3 and Cree have agreed as follows: 
  
 1. Cree and C3 will cooperate in the preparation, filing and prosecution of
a U.S. patent application or applications claiming the Invention and applications in such foreign countries as may be mutually agreed. All applications filed claiming the Invention (the “Applications”), and all filings made in the
prosecution of the Applications, will be subject to review and approval by the parties and their respective counsel prior to filing. All information disclosed by either party to the other party or its counsel in connection with the Applications will
subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Exclusive Supply Agreement dated September 15, 1995 between C3 and Cree. 
  
 2. C3 will reimburse Cree for all fees and expenses of Cree’s counsel incurred in connection with the Applications and for all filing fees, issue
fees, maintenance fees, annuities and other out-of-pocket expenses paid by on or behalf of Cree in connection with the preparation, filing and prosecution of the Applications and the maintenance of any patents issued thereon. C3 will be solely
responsible for all fees and expenses of its own counsel. 
  
 3.
Cree will grant C3 an irrevocable, royalty-free nonexclusive license, without the right to sublicense, to use the Invention to make, have made, use and sell gemstones of silicon 
  

 [***] Confidential treatment requested pursuant to a request for confidential treatment filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Omitted portions have been filed separately with the Commission. 








 C3 Diamante, Inc. 
 January 31, 1996 
 Page 2 
  
 carbide. The license will be evidenced by a License Agreement reflecting the foregoing terms and such other provisions as are customary or may be mutually agreed. If the
parties do not execute a License Agreement within 30 days from the date hereof, the license will be considered granted on the terms and conditions contained in this letter agreement. 
  
 If the foregoing accurately states our agreement, please have a copy of this letter agreement signed on behalf of C3 below
and returned to Cree. 
  

	 Very truly yours,

	
	 CREE RESEARCH, INC.

	
	 /s/ F. Neal Hunter


	 F. Neal Hunter, President



  

	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

	
	 C3 DIAMANTE, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	         /s/ Jeff Hunter


	 	 	 Secretary/ Treasurer

		
	 Date:
	 	 1/31/96