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

                                                                  Exhibit 10.8.2

                            Amendment No. 1 to the

              LogicVision, Inc. 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan

     Effective August 18, 2001, the LogicVision, Inc. 2000 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows:

1.  The number "2001" is substituted with the number "2002" wherever it appears
    in Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 14(a) of the Plan.

2.  The second paragraph in Section 2(h) of the Plan is substituted with the
    following:

        "The foregoing notwithstanding, `Eligible Employee' shall not include
        (i) any individual whose participation in the Plan is prohibited by the
        law of any country which has jurisdiction over him or her; or (ii) any
        individual who is subject to a collective bargaining agreement that does
        not provide for participation in the Plan; or (iii) any individual who
        is not on the W-2 Payroll of a Participating Company.  If during any
        period, a Participating Company has not treated an individual as an
        employee and, for that reason, has not withheld income or employment
        taxes with respect to that individual, then that individual shall not be
        an Eligible Employee for that period, even if the individual is
        determined, currently or retroactively, to have been an employee for
        income or employment tax purposes during all or any portion of that
        period."

3.  The following defined term shall be added to the end of Section 2 of the
    Plan:

          "(t)  'W-2 Payroll' means whatever mechanism or procedure that a
                 -----------
        Participating Company uses to pay any individual which results in the
        issuance of Form W-2 to the individual.  `W-2 Payroll' does not include
        any mechanism or procedure which results in the issuance of any form
        other than a Form W-2 to an individual, including, but not limited to,
        any Form 1099 which may be issued to an independent contractor, an
        agency employee or a consultant.  Whether a mechanism or procedure
        qualifies as a `W-2 Payroll' shall be determined in the absolute
        discretion of the Participating Company, and the Participating Company's
        determination shall be conclusive and binding on all persons."

                                     * * *
<PAGE>

     To record the adoption of this Amendment to the Plan by the Board of
Directors as of August 18, 2001, the Company has caused its authorized officer
to execute the same.

                                          LOGICVISION, INC.

                                          By /s/ Vinod K. Agarwal
                                             --------------------
                                             Vinod K. Agarwal

                                          As its Chief Executive Officer
                                                 -----------------------
|                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                             
|                                                                                                          
|Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                          
|Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 4     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 8      | 13     | 4      | 4      | 24     | 2      | 8      | 0      | 0      | 2     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2020 FEB 12 Mi & 05 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

v. § CASE # 1:20-CV-0015 

§ 

BRANDI K STOKES, § 

Defendant. § 

MOTION FOR DE NOVO REVIEW 

NOW COMES Defendant, Brandi K Stokes, and files this Motion for De Novo Review, 

and shows the Court the following: 

On February 11, 2020, Magistrate Judge Mark Lane entered a "text order" denying the 

Defendant's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. The 

Defendant's application was incorrectly docketed as a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma 

pauperis. While the Defendant has become indigent and has been declared indigent in state court, 

the Defendant's grounds for requesting to proceed without prepaying fees or costs is not based 

upon indigency. Further, Magistrate Judge Mark Lane is disqualified as matter of law from 

participating in proceedings involving the Defendant and a Motion to Disqualify or Recuse was 

pending against him at the time that he entered the "text order". The Defendant, therefore, 

requests a de novo review of the Magistrate's order. 

The Defendant prays that this motion be granted in its entirety. Defendant further requests 

an evidentiary hearing after the appointment of competent counsel. 

DATED: February 12, 2020 

Brandi K Stokes, Defendant 

Texas State Bar No. 24044940 

1 

Case 1:20-cv-00153-RP Document 9 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 2
brandi.stokesgmai1.com +1 512 206 0202 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on February 12, 2020, a true and correct copy of the above was served on 

counsel for the Plaintiff through CMRRR at the address listed for Plaintiff 

Brandi K Stokes 

2 

Case 1:20-cv-00153-RP Document 9 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

EL PASO DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

§ 

v. § 

§ EP-20-CR-00389-DCG 

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS, § 

§ 

Defendant. § 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Patrick Wood Crusius's "Motion for Rearraignment" 

(ECF No. 255). This matter is SET for a hearing on February 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom Number 812 on the Eighth Floor of the United States Courthouse, 525 Magoffin 

Avenue, El Paso, Texas. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of January 2023. 

lb VII) '.(;UADERRAMA 

LNITEfl STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 256 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 1
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4911 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lithium ion electrical storage battery. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. CLARKE of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lithium ion electrical 

storage battery. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LITHIUM ION ELECTRICAL STORAGE BATTERY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Lithium ion electric storage batteries, certified by 

the importer for use in hybrid electric motor vehicles 

(provided for in subheading 8507.80.81) ......... 2.4% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4911 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4709 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4709

  To suspend temporarily the duty on Polymer, Caprolactone-diethylene 
                                glycol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

 Mr. Guthrie introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on Polymer, Caprolactone-diethylene 
                                glycol.

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

SECTION 1. POLYMER, CAPROLACTONE-DIETHYLENE GLYCOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00         Polymer,           Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          Caprolactone-                                                      31/2015
                          diethylene glycol
                          (CAS No. 36890-68-
                          3) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3907.99.01)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4909 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4909

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain hybrid electric vehicle 
                               inverters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

    Mr. Clarke of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain hybrid electric vehicle 
                               inverters.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE INVERTERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Inverters for       1.1%            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          converting DC                                                     12/31/2015
                          battery output to
                          three phase AC
                          output designed
                          to power an
                          electric drive
                          motor, certified
                          by the importer
                          for use in hybrid
                          electric vehicles
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8504.40.95)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### STEWART v. McLEAN.

No. 11806.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March *17,*1948.

Rehearing Denied April 14, 1948.

Carter & Stiernberg, of Harlingen, for appellant.

Fritz C. Sorrell, of Pearsall, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Lee V. Stewart from an order overruling a plea of privilege. The successful plaintiff below (A. H. McLean) relied upon exception 4 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., which provides that: “4. Defendants in different counties. — -If two or more defendants reside in different counties, suit may be brought in any county where one of the defendants resides. * * * ”

The leading case construing Exception 4 is Stockyards National Bank v. Maples, 127 Tex. 633, 95 S.W.2d 1300, in which it was held that upon a plea of privilege hearing, a cause of action against the resident defendant must be established by a preponderance of the evidence and a joint cause of action must be alleged against the non-resident defendant, or a cause of action against the non-resident which may be joined with the action against the resident, under the rule intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits.

The appellee, A. H. McLean, brought suit in Frio County complaining of Dilley State' Bank (the resident defendant) 'and Lee V. Stewart, a resident of Hidalgo County (the non-resident defendant). The *275suit was based upon a contract whereby Stewart agreed to buy from McLean twenty cars of melons. In pursuance of said contract, Stewart deposited $2,000 in the Dilley State Bank, as part of the purchase price therefor. Appellee alleged that Stewart had failed to carry out his contract; that as a result appellee had been damaged in the sum of $10,713.78, and that the money on deposit in the bank should be paid over to him.

The trial court impliedly held that appellee had established a cause of action against the resident defendant, the Dilley State Bank. We are of the opinion that such holding has support in the evidence. The remaining question therefore is whether or not the pleading of the appellee states a cause of action against Stewart, which may be properly joined with the action against the bank under the rule intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits.

We hold that the petition does state a cause of action against Stewart which may Pe properly joined with the action against the bank under the rule referred to. Gambrell v. Tatum, Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W. 287.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-549-000]


U-T Offshore System, L.L.C.; Notice of Tariff Filing

September 21, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 15, 2000, U-T Offshore System, L.L.C. 
(UTOS), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to 
the filing, with an effective date of October 1, 2000.
    UTOS states that this filing is made in compliance with the 
Commission's mandate under Order No. 637 that pipelines file to remove 
any tariff provisions that are inconsistent with the temporary removal 
of the maximum rate ceiling for short term capacity releases.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-24769 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
| (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:  August      5, 2008                   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
|  /s/Jimmy      E. Addison                         |   |
| Jimmy      E. Addison                                  |   |
| Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
Exhibit 13.1



Certification 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 Special Financial Report (the Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to
Rule 15d-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), by Sankyo Company, Limited (the Company), we, the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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, as amended; 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: September 26, 2005              |  |  |  |                                          
|                                      |  | 
|/s/ Takashi Shoda                     |  |  |  | /s/ Akihiko Ozawa                        
|Takashi Shoda Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Akihiko Ozawa Principal Financial
Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 96-50103 Summary Calendar

_____________________

ELMO HAROLD LIESMANN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOB OWENS, Director; TAMMY McINOCH, Parole Officer, Dallas County,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CV-396

_________________________________________________________________ July 9, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Elmo Harold Liesmann, Texas prisone r #390085, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

Liesmann contends that the requirements of Heck v. Humphrey
, 114

S.Ct. 2364 (1994), do not apply to his claims against the

defendants. We do not agree. S ee Jackson v. Vannoy , 49 F.3d 175,-2-

177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied
, 116 S.Ct. 148 (1995). We have

reviewed the record and Liesmann’s brief and AFFIRM the district

court’s dismissal for essentially the same reasons adopted by the

district court. L iesmann v. Owens , No. A-95-CV-396 (W.D. Tex.

Jan. 2, 1996).

A F F I R M E D.