alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.10

                           Data Critical Corporation
                     19820 North Creek Parkway, Suite 100
                               Bothell, WA 98011
                 phone (425) 482-7000/facsimile (425) 482-7010


July 18, 2001

Michael E. Singer
Executive Vice President, Corporate Development
and Chief Financial Officer


Dear Michael:

     In appreciation of your contributions to the Company, I would like to offer
you a cash bonus of $200,000 that will vest and be payable immediately upon the
closing of our merger with and into a General Electric Company affiliate.  This
amount will be in addition to any other payments and benefits to which you are
entitled under your other agreements with the Company.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    DATA CRITICAL CORPORATION

                                         /s/ Richard L. Earnest
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    By:  Richard L. Earnest
                                    Title:  Chief Executive Officer

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

MICHAEL E. SINGER

   /s/ Michael E. Singer
---------------------------

ACKNOWLEDGED:

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY


By:    /s/ Pamela Krop
   ------------------------
Name:  Pamela Krop
Title: Vice President and General Counsel
Case 7:22-cr-00011-O Document 67 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 128
Case 7:22-cr-00011-O Document 67 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 129
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 159 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 159

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

   To designate the month of November in 1993 and 1994 as ``National 
                            Hospice Month''.



                                     


103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 159

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
   To designate the month of November in 1993 and 1994 as ``National 
                            Hospice Month''.

Whereas hospice care has been demonstrated to be a humanitarian way for 
        terminally ill patients to approach the end of their lives in comfort 
        with appropriate, competent, and compassionate care in an environment of 
        personal individuality and dignity;
Whereas hospice advocates care for the patient and family by attending to their 
        physical, emotional, and spiritual needs and specifically, the pain and 
        grief they experience;
Whereas hospice care is provided by an interdisciplinary team of physicians, 
        nurses, social workers, pharmacists, psychological and spiritual 
        counselors, and community volunteers trained in the hospice concept of 
        care;
Whereas hospice has become a full partner in the Nation's health care system;
Whereas the enactment of a permanent medicare hospice benefit and an optional 
        medicaid hospice benefit makes it possible for many more Americans to 
        have the opportunity to elect to receive hospice care;
Whereas private insurance carriers and employers have recognized the value of 
        hospice care by the inclusion of hospice benefits in health care 
        coverage packages; and
Whereas there remains a great need to increase public awareness of the benefits 
        of hospice care: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the month of November in 
1993 and 1994 is designated as ``National Hospice Month''. The 
President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon all 
government agencies, the health care community, appropriate private 
organizations, and people of the United States to observe each of those 
months with appropriate forums, programs and activities designed to 
encourage national recognition of and support for hospice care as a 
humane response to the needs of the terminally ill and as a viable 
component of the health care system in this country.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68990-68991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP88-67-074 and RP98-198-002]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 8, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2000, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1 and Original Volume No. 2, the 
tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective 
December 1, 2000.
    Texas Eastern asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply 
with the Stipulation and Agreement filed by Texas Eastern on December 
17, 1991 in Docket Nos. RP88-67, et al. (Phase II/PCBs) and approved by 
the Commission on March 18, 1992 (Settlement), and with Section 26 of 
Texas Eastern's FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Texas Eastern states that such tariff sheets reflect a decrease in 
the PCB-Related Cost component of Texas Eastern's currently effective 
rates. For example, the decrease in the 100% load factor average cost 
of long-haul service under Rate Schedule FT-1 from Access Area Zone ELA 
to Market Zone 3 is $0.0053 per dekatherm.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were mailed to all 
affected customers of Texas Eastern and interested state commissions. 
Texas Eastern states that copies of this filing have also been mailed 
to all parties on the service list in Docket Nos. RP88-67, et al. Phase 
II/PCBs).
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the

[[Page 68991]]

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. 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). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29193 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          40,510
<SECURITIES>                                     3,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,608
<INVENTORY>                                        526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,617
<PP&E>                                         127,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,645
<BONDS>                                         25,335
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           405
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,035
<SALES>                                         87,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,147
<CGS>                                           66,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,694
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,741)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,265)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,265)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.78)
        

</TABLE>
#### MARTIN et al. v. McKENZIE et al.

No. 12341.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 10, 1951.

L. B. Cooper, Cotulla, for appellants.

.House, Mercer & House, San Antonio, for appellees.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice. .

This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege filed by J. W. Martin, Jr., and Ray Martin to be sued in La Salle ■ County, Texas, the county of their residence.

Appellees attempt to assert venue in Bexar County' under Subdivision 5 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Civ.Stats.. The suit was for a real estate commission on land located in La Salle County. The contract was in writing and is in' evidence. It does not expressly provide that such real estate commission is payable in Bexar County, Texas, therefore venue can not be maintained in Bexar County under Subdivision 5 of Article 1995, supra. This subdivision was amended in 1935, and since that amendment our courts have held numerous times that before venue can be maintained in a county other than that of the defendant’s residence under this provision of the venue statute, a written contract must be shown which provides that the obligation sued upon is performable in the county of suit, expressly naming the county or a definite place in the county. Ammann v. Daniel Oil Co., Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 181; McKinney v. Moon, Tex.Civ.App., 173 S.W.2d 217; Cox v. Bunn, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 101; Smith v. Hall, 147 Tex. 634, 219 S.W.2d 441; Saigh v. Monteith, 147 Tex. 341, 215 S.W.2d 610; Laughlin v. Nordyke, Tex.Civ.App., 215 S.W.2d 424; Southwestern Peanut Growers Ass’n v. Kendrick, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 1019; Kendrick v. Mackey, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 394; Wrenn v. Brooks, Tex.Civ.App., 257 S.W. 299; Colman v. H. Dittlinger Roller Mills, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 604; Rio Grande Valley Citrus Exchange v. Leche & Leche, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 1015; Johnson v. Personius, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 471.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and judgment here rendered transferring this cause to the District Court of La Salle County, in the manner provided by Rule 89, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. "

Reversed and rendered.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0430 IN THE MATTER OF: V.K.B., A Youth. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 14, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 10 2021

05/10/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0430
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6612
VINCENT JOHN HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY TUSTALL; MAXTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAJOR GOINGS; SCOTLAND COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-28-5-BO) Submitted: September 12, 2002 Decided: October 1, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent John Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Vincent John Hall appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hall v. Tustall , No. CA-02-28-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 2002). We deny Hall’s motion for default judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000940516
<NAME>                        Kalan Gold Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         218
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               218
<PP&E>                                         5,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (844)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 66,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       71
<OTHER-SE>                                     26,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   66,086
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (41,124)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,674)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (42,808)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42,808)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### MAYFIELD v. STATE (3 cases).

Nos. 22529-22531.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1943.

Truman Warren, of Tyler, for appellant. Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was given a sentence of three-years upon his plea of guilty before the court without a jury, and from it brings-this appeal.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. The-proceeding appears to be regular in every way.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

OLIVIA PEREZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UNION STEWARDS UAW BOMBARDIER, )

)

Defendant. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1178-C

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that this civil action should be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution.1

The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error

and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated

therein, the Court ORDERS that this civil action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated December 20, 2022. 

SAM R. CUMMINGS

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired. 

Case 3:22-cv-01178-C-BK Document 17 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 78
<PAGE>   1
STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(dollars in millions except per share data)     EXHIBIT 11.1 TO FORM 10-Q REPORT



PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:          13 WEEKS ENDED       39 WEEKS ENDED
                                            October 26, 1997     October 27,1997


Net Income                                  $   0.4              $     1.3


Weighted average                                                          
shares outstanding (000's)                   82,361                 82,294
                                            -------              ---------

Primary E.P.S.                                          $  0.00           $ 0.02
                                                        =======           ======



FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net Income                                  $   0.4              $     1.3


Weighted average                                                          
shares outstanding (000's)                   82,387                 82,500
                                            -------              ---------
Fully Diluted E.P.S.                                    $  0.00           $ 0.02
                                                        =======           ======
----

|   | 1. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-61231) pertaining to the 1998 stock option plan of PDI, Inc., |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60512) pertaining to the 2000 Omnibus Incentive Plan of PDI, Inc., and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123312) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Award and Incentive Plan of PDI, Inc.; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------|---------------------------|

----
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M ARI A V ALLE S DE M ENDEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 72123 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 670- 165 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a r i aV a l l e s D e M e nde z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f orc anc e l l a t i on of r e m ova l . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of 

# FI LED JU L 21 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 72123 2 di sc re t i on the deni alof a m ot i on t o con t i nu e, Sa n do v a l-L u n a v . Mu ka s e y, 526 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 46 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( per c uri am ), and w e deny i n p artand d i sm i ss i n p art th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T he I Jdi d notabus e he rdi s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng ac ont i nua nc e on the gr ound th a t V a lle s D e M e n d e z d idn o t d e m o n s tr a te g o o dc au s e . See 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 29 ( a n I Jm a yg r an t am o tio n f o rc o n tin u an c e f

o rg o o dc au s e s h o w n ) . T o th e e x ten t i t i s r aise d , w e lac kju risd icti o n to re v iew V alles D e M en d ez ’s u n e x h au s te din e f

f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 358 F . 3d 67 4, 67 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7634

CARLOS R. MAYBERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE #1, Commissioner of Anne Arundel County District Court; JOHN DOE #2, Second Commissioner of Anne Arundel County District Court, individually in their official capacity; JOHN SWIVEL, Case Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA04-2998) Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 4, 2005 Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos R. Mayberry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Carlos R. Mayberry appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mayberry v. John Doe #1 , No. CA-04-2998 (D. Md. filed Sept. 29, 2004 & entered Sept. 30, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED