alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.3




AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT




This
Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement (the "First Amendment") is made as of
this 31st day of December 2016 by and between Envision Solar International,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and Tony Posawatz, an individual
(the "Grantee"), with respect to the following facts:


RECITALS


A.      The Company and the
Grantee have entered into that certain Restricted Stock Agreement, dated
February 19, 2016 (the "Agreement"), and the Company and the Grantee desire to amend
the Agreement pursuant to this First Amendment.


B.       In conjunction with this
First Amendment, the Company has agreed to grant to the Grantee (i) 750,000
restricted shares of the Company's common stock and (ii) an additional 750,000
restricted shares of the Company's common stock to vest in the future from time
to time, based on the Grantee achieving certain performance criteria to be
agreed upon by the Board of Directors after discussion with senior management
at a future date.


C.       The terms used in this
First Amendment will have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement unless
otherwise defined herein.


NOW,
THEREFORE,
for one dollar
and other good and valuable consideration, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:


1.     Amendment.


The following sentence is added to Section 2.1 of the Agreement as
follows:


"Any
Restricted Shares not released from escrow as of December 31, 2016 are no
longer eligible for release from escrow and will not vest, and are hereby
cancelled and returned to the authorized but unissued shares of the Company's
common stock."


2.       
Effect
of First Amendment.


The
Agreement will remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified
by this First Amendment.  In the event of any conflict between the First
Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this First Amendment will govern.


3.       
Counterparts.


This
First Amendment may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts,
each of which counterparts will be deemed to be an original and such
counterparts will constitute but one and the same instrument.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment
is executed as of the date first above written.


 


	COMPANY: ENVISION SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC.	 	GRANTEE: TONY POSAWATZ
	 	 	 
	
    
      By:

    	 	
    
 

    
	Desmond Wheatley, President	 	Tony Posawatz
# Public Outreach - Appalachian Regional Commission

- China Riddle Communications Specialist.The post China Riddle appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Ashley Hill The post Ashley Hill appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Doris Charouel Communications Specialist.The post Doris Charouel appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Janiene Bohannon The post Janiene Bohannon appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEKSANDR PETROVICH KAPTYUG,

a.k.a. Aliaksandr Peter Kaptsiuh,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72857

Agency No. A076-056-978

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

Aleksandr Petrovich Kaptyug, a native and citizen of Belarus, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily

affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for

FILED

APR 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72857

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”) and pretermitting his applications for adjustment of status, cancellation of

removal, and asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

de novo questions of law, Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2010), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Kaptyug did not

qualify for withholding of removal because he failed to establish a clear probability

of persecution on account of his religion. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016;

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).

The IJ correctly determined that Kaptyug was ineligible to adjust his status. 

Kaptyug had previously adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident

(“LPR”) and therefore cannot “re-adjust” his status to that of an LPR under

8 U.S.C. § 1159, to avoid removal. See Robleto-Pastora, 591 F.3d at 1060.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Kaptyug’s asylum, cancellation of removal

and CAT claims because he failed to exhaust his challenges to the IJ’s conclusion

that he is ineligible for these forms of relief due to his prior criminal convictions.
3 10-72857

See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks

jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4296 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To place requirements on operational risk capital requirements for banking organizations established by an appropriate Federal banking agency. 

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


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4296 RFS

1 SECTION 1. OPERATIONAL RISK CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS 

2 FOR BANKING ORGANIZATIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—An appropriate Federal banking 

4 agency may not establish an operational risk capital re5 quirement for banking organizations, unless such require6 ment— 

7 (1) is based primarily on the risks posed by a 

8 banking organization’s current activities and busi9 nesses; 

10 (2) is appropriately sensitive to the risks posed 

11 by such current activities and businesses; 

12 (3) is determined under a forward-looking as13 sessment of potential losses that may arise out of a 

14 banking organization’s current activities, businesses, 

15 and exposures, which is not solely based on a bank16 ing organization’s historical losses; and 

17 (4) permits adjustments based on qualifying 

18 operational risk mitigants. 

19 (b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

20 (1) APPROPRIATE FEDERAL BANKING AGEN21 CY.—The term ‘‘appropriate Federal banking agen22 cy’’— 

23 (A) has the meaning given such term 

24 under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insur25 ance Act; and 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4296 RFS

1 (B) means the National Credit Union Ad2 ministration, in the case of an insured credit 

3 union. 

4 (2) BANKING ORGANIZATION.—The term 

5 ‘‘banking organization’’ means— 

6 (A) an insured depository institution (as 

7 defined under section 3 of the Federal Deposit 

8 Insurance Act); 

9 (B) an insured credit union (as defined 

10 under section 101 of the Federal Credit Union 

11 Act); 

12 (C) a depository institution holding com13 pany (as defined under section 3 of the Federal 

14 Deposit Insurance Act); 

15 (D) a company that is treated as a bank 

16 holding company for purposes of section 8 of 

17 the International Banking Act; and 

18 (E) a U.S. intermediate holding company 

19 established by a foreign banking organization 

20 pursuant to section 252.153 of title 12, Code of 

21 Federal Regulations. 

22 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF SURPLUS FUNDS OF FEDERAL RE23 SERVE BANKS. 

24 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Federal 

25 Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 289(a)(3)(A)) is amended by 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 4296 RFS

1 striking ‘‘$7,500,000,000’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$7,468,571,428’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take ef4 fect on May 1, 2018. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 27, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2009032EN.01002202.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 3 December 2008 — Maria Catena Rita Pignatoro v Ufficio Centrale Circoscrizionale c/o Tribunale di Catania and Others

(Case C-535/08)

(2009/C 32/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maria Catena Rita Pignatoro

Applicant:

Defendants: Ufficio Centrale Circoscrizionale c/o Tribunale di Catania and Others

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Whether or not Article 6 of the EU Treaty, Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR, implemented by Law No 848 of 1955, Article 2 of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR, and Article 25 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, implemented by Law No 881 of 1977, are to be interpreted as compatible with the regional rules laid down in Articles 1c, 14a(13)(c), 15(3)(d), 16a(7)(a) and 17b(4)(b) and (c) of Regional Law No 29 of 1951, which exclude citizens who were not resident in Sicily at the time at which nominations were put forward from eligibility for election to the Sicilian Regional Assembly. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether or not Article 6 of the EU Treaty, Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR, implemented by Law No 848 of 1955, Article 2 of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR, and Article 25 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, implemented by Law No 881 of 1977, are to be interpreted as compatible with the regional rules laid down in Articles 1c, 14a(13)(c), 15(3)(d), 16a(7)(a) and 17b(4)(b) and (c) of Regional Law No 29 of 1951, which exclude citizens who were not resident in Sicily at the time at which nominations were put forward from eligibility for election to the Sicilian Regional Assembly.

| 2. | Whether Articles 17 EC and 18 EC (formerly Article 8A of the EC Treaty) preclude or are compatible with the regional rules referred to in paragraph 4.1. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whether Articles 17 EC and 18 EC (formerly Article 8A of the EC Treaty) preclude or are compatible with the regional rules referred to in paragraph 4.1.

---
# C_2008142EN.01001301.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria) lodged on 6 March 2008 — Arthur Gottwald v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz

(Case C-103/08)

(2008/C 142/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Arthur Gottwald

Appellant:

Respondent: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Bregenz

Respondent:

Question referred

Is Article 12 EC to be interpreted as precluding the application of a provision of national law which provides that an annual disc in respect of a motor vehicle for the use of federal toll roads is made available free of charge only to those persons with a defined disability who are resident or ordinarily resident in national territory?

---
# Economic Status - Appalachian Regional Commission

- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2024 This map shows ARC's economic classification of the 423 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2024 (October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024).The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2024 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2023 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 423 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2023 (October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023).The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2023 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2022 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 423 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2022 (October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022). The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2022 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2021 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 420 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2021 (October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021).The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2021 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2020 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 420 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2020 (October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020). The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2020 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2019 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 420 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2019 (October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019). The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2019 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2018 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 420 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2018 (October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018).The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2018 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2017 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 420 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2017 (October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017). The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2017 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2016 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 420 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2016 (October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016). The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2016 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2015 This map shows ARC’s economic classification of the 420 counties in the Appalachian Region for FY 2015 (October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015). The post County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2015 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1378]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. RICHARD L. HANNA

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 537, I was unavoidably 
absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 538, I was unavoidably absent. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 539, due to severe thunderstorms over 
the Northeast, my flight was unavoidably delayed. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________
```
Dismissed w.o.j. and Opinion Filed February 16, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00120-CV

IN RE CHARLES ANTHONY ALLEN, SR., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F00-51709-HJU

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Lang

Relator’s article 11.07 petition for writ of habeas corpus is pending in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. In a September 20, 2017 order, the court of criminal appeals ordered the trial 

court to take certain actions, make certain findings, and file a supplemental transcript and 

supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law with 120 days of the date of the order. In 

this original proceeding, relator contends the trial court has not complied with the order and seeks 

a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to comply.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant relief in a post-conviction 

habeas corpus proceeding where there is a final felony conviction. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of 

Texas, Fifth District, 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Ex parte Alexander, 685 

S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 5 (West Supp. 

2013). An intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction to rule on matters pertaining to a 

pending Article 11.07 application. Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117–18. The September 20, 2017 order 
–2–

pertains to relator’s pending Article 11.07 application. We, therefore, have no jurisdiction to 

enforce that order. Accordingly, we dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction. 

180120F.P05

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
From: Susan Miller [ mailto:SMiller@bia.org ]

Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:43 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: terry.schimmel@boral.com

Subject: Lee Brick

Sharon

Terry and I have reviewed the information on Lee Brick. While there are some things that we

believe make the process different from most brick kilns, we have concerns about the stack test

itself.

• The volume of stack gas coll ected during this test (and another at Lee Brick) does not meet

the minimum volume of 1 cubic meter that is required for a good test. I cannot recall if this

minimum is included in the test method itself, the referencing regulation, but it is definitely

b est practice. [I am checking on the reference with our testing expert, but perhaps you

could check with yours as well].

• There is also a problem with the times on these tests

- if you look at the times, it appears

that Runs 2 and 3 overlapped almost the e ntire time. That does not seem to be consistent

with testing protocol.

We believe that this test should not be included in the database.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions.

susan

Susan J Miller

Vice President, Envir onment, Health & Safety

Brick Industry Association

311 South Academy Street

Cary, North Carolina 27511

919 380

- 2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, y ou may learn

something new.

- Dalai Lama
# C_2008158EN.01002601.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/26

---

Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Tomas v Parliament

(Case F-31/08)

(2008/C 158/46)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Pavlodar, Kazakhstan) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority to dismiss the applicant and compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Appointing Authority's decision to dismiss the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Appointing Authority's decision to dismiss the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 10, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on <<Project_Name>> (“<<Acronym>>”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Specifically, GEII, Cambridge, MA, has been added as a party to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and NPSS intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership or planned activities.

                    On December 11, 2013, NPSS filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on February 20, 2014, (79 FR 9767).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 25, 2022. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 13, 2023, (87 FR 29380).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-27624 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P