alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 238 (Monday, December 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31435]



[[Page 77360]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-129-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Cashout Report

December 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing its seventh annual cashout 
report for the September 1999 through August 2000 Period.
    Tennessee states that the cashout report is the second filed by 
Tennessee under the new cashout reconciliation methodology established 
pursuant to the March 25, 1999 cashout settlement on the Tennessee 
system. The cashout report reflects a net cashout gain during the 
period of $209,435. Pursuant to the March 25, 1999 cashout settlement, 
there is a cumulative loss carry forward from prior cashout operations 
of $978,801.
    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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 on or 
before December 12, 2000. 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). 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.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31435 Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1340

In Re: EDWARD AARON WHITEHEAD,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:09-cr-00069-JPB-DJJ-1)

Submitted: July 10, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Aaron Whitehead, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Aaron Whitehead petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting 

on this court’s order remanding the case to the district court 

to permit resentencing. He seeks an order from this court 

directing the district court to act. Our review of the district 

court’s docket reveals that the district court has granted 

Whitehead’s motion to reduce his prison sentence to thirty 

months. Accordingly, because the district court has recently 

decided Whitehead’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 

We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
Clayton Houchin

Buttonwillow Warehouse Company

P.O. Box 98

Buttonwillow, CA 93206

Joe Bavaro

Bavaro Farming Company

P.O. Box 511

Escalon, CA 95320

Richard Matoian

American Pistachio Growers

7030 N. Fruit Ave., Suite 117

Fresno, CA 93711-0782
chouchin@techag.com

alexanders@helenachemical.com

amachado@midvalleyag.com

bhanson@ucdavis.edu

gmusson@gtipros.com

mikestrmiska@yahoo.com

bob@cacitrusmutual.com

shushbeck@wilburellis.com

szkurthe@ad3.ucdavis.edu

ceidsath@walnuts.org

Levin.nancy@epamail.epa.gov

akatten@crlaf.org

cvaladez@cgtl.com

pstever@tulcofb.org

slandfair@mckennalong.com

blbret@dow.com

rcurtis@almondboard.com

roger@agprocessors.org

afiqurk@healthyplants.org

jsteggall@cdfa.ca.gov

khensley@esgllc.net

Bradley.Schrenk@simplot.com

sdugo@midvalleyag.com (3*)

mpf@stateside.com (request to be notified) - Melissa Martin

*Bulehuas, Peter

Gurlo, Anthony

Eric Vangroningen
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6544

KEVIN J. KENDRICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CARROL TYNDALL; DENNIS R. BIDWELL, Warden;

KATHLEEN HAWK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-97-299-JFM)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin J. Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court properly required exhaustion of

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp.

1997). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the district court

that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies

were not available, the court's dismissal of the action, without

prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion. Appellant submitted with

his informal brief materials which may support his contention that

he exhausted his administrative remedies. However, these materials

were not presented to the district court and will not be considered

in the first instance by this court. We therefore deny Appellant's

motion for production of documents and affirm the district court's

order. 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
#### CHANEY v. STATE.

No. 16092.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1933.

IV. E. Martin, of Abilene, for appellant.

Lloyd IV. Davidson, State’s Atty.,.of Austin, for. the State.

CALHOUN, Judge.

The offense, kidnapping; the punishment, 50 years in,the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement'of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The' judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission, of Appeals has ibeen examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.'
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          19,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  934,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,529
<INVENTORY>                                  1,035,927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,985,632
<PP&E>                                       3,493,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                 673,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,782,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,333,075
<BONDS>                                      1,673,812
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,975,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,782,632
<SALES>                                      6,692,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,713,189
<CGS>                                        6,439,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,532,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,890
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                114,886
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,351
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             85,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    85,535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1




                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name                                                        Jurisdiction          D/B/A
----                                                        ------------          -----
<S>                                                         <C>                   <C>
Forzair Ltd.                                                Ireland               Forzair Ltd.

Fuisz International Holdings Limited                        Ireland               Fuisz International Holdings
                                                                                  Limited

Fuisz International Limited                                 Ireland               Fuisz International Limited

Fuisz International Bermuda Limited                         Bermuda               Fuisz International Bermuda
                                                                                  Limited

Fuisz Ireland Limited                                       Ireland               Fuisz Ireland Limited

Fuisz Technologies (Ireland) Limited                        Ireland               Fuisz Technologies (Ireland)
                                                                                  Limited

Laboratoires Murat                                          France                Laboratoires Murat

Pangea Ltd.                                                 United States         Pangea Ltd.

Clonmel Healthcare Limited                                  Ireland               Clonmel Healthcare Limited

Istoria Farmaceutici                                        Italy                 Istoria Farmaceutici

Dr. Rentschler GmbH & Co. Medizin KG                        Germany               Fuisz Pharma KG
</TABLE>

===============================================================================
                                      Page 38
#### PLANES v. STATE.

No. 20123.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1939.

J. E. Clauson, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an attempt to rob, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

*365The record is before us without a statement of facts or hills of exception. No defect in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or perceived. Consequently no question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011449
<NAME> SUBURBAN LODGES OF AMERICA, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       7,816,478
<SECURITIES>                                 8,237,126
<RECEIVABLES>                                  966,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (64,478)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,350,161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,414,881
<PP&E>                                     256,863,591
<DEPRECIATION>                              (8,998,305)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             280,164,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,302,967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       154,311
<OTHER-SE>                                 208,883,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               280,164,617
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,452,736
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,716,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (69,537)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (25,033)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,504)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
2005 Executive Bonus Structure



 Exhibit 10.30 
  
 2005 Executive Bonus Structure 
  
 Criteria (100% of eligible bonus as follows) 
  

	 	•	 	65% tied to targeted pre-tax profit levels set by the Compensation Committee based on the Company’s prior year results and Plan for the current year, with payment amounts of
zero, 50%, 75% or 100% based on performance levels against that Plan. 

  

	 	•	 	35% tied to performance against individual MBOs with certain minimum pretax target requirements set by the Compensation Committee. 

  
 Opportunity 
  

	 	•	 	25-35% of annual base salary (depending upon executive) 

  
 Other 
  

	 	•	 	Additional upside opportunity of 2% to 5% of annual base salary if pre-tax profits reach levels established by the Compensation Committee in excess of the Company’s Plan.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

11:00 a.m., Friday, December 29, 2000.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00-30859  Filed 11-30-00; 10:46 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
WWW.EXFILE.COM, INC. -- 13524 -- BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. -- EXHIBIT 10.3 TO FORM 8-K


EXHIBIT 10.3

 

 

 

Form of Amendment

 

Effective May 9, 2005, each of our long-term incentive plans (the
“Plans”) are amended and restated to conform to our current practice in
compliance with Section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to prohibit
executive officers from delivering promissory notes to the Company in connection
with the exercise of Awards granted under the Plans.
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 1, 2014

No. 04-14-00679-CR

Benjamin Alley MOORE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR4943

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

A Trial Court=s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal has been filed in this appeal 

in which the trial court judge certifies that the underlying criminal case Ais a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.@ It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court clerk 

file an electronic clerk=s record within ten days from the date of this order containing the 

following documents:

1. All pre-trial orders and the related pre-trial motions;

2. The Court Admonishments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony and 

Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant=s plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post-judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court=s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.
All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk 

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court 

clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter=s record in this appeal.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 63313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25424]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9741-4]

Notice of Meeting of the EPA's Children's Health Protection 
Advisory Committee (CHPAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of 
the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be 
held November 7 and 8, 2012 at EPA's Potomac Yards Building (2777 South 
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202), Room 4120 North. The CHPAC was 
created to advise the Environmental Protection Agency on science, 
regulations, and other issues relating to children's environmental 
health.

DATES: The CHPAC will meet November 7 and 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES: 2777 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Berger, Office of Children's 
Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2191 or berger.martha@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the 
public. The CHPAC will meet on Wednesday, November 7th from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m., and Thursday, November 8th from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Agenda items 
include discussions on lead and children, prenatal environmental 
exposures and health disparities.
    Access and Accommodations: For information on access or services 
for individuals with disabilities, please contact Martha Berger at 202-
564-2191 or berger.martha@epa.gov., preferably at least 10 days prior 
to the meeting.

    Dated: October 4, 2012.
Martha Berger,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2012-25424 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0163

_________________

R-MONTANA ASSOCIATES, LP,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

KEVIN FULBRIGHT AND ACCESS FITNESS, 

INC. et al.,

 Defendants and Appellants.

O R D E R

_________________

On July 11, 2022, the mediator for this appeal filed a report stating that the case has 

settled. Nothing further has been filed.

Therefore, and pursuant to M. R. App. P. 7(7)(b),

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 26 2022

08/26/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0163
#### GRAY et al. v. KALISKI.

Motion Nos. 9986 and 9989; 1301-5794.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

March 9, 1932.

For former opinion, see 45 S.W.(2d) 157, which affirmed 28 S.W.(2d) 931.

John C. Wall, J. C. Sullivan, and Don A. Bliss, all of San Antonio, for plaintiffs in error.

F. H. Booth and Robert G. Harris, both of San Antonio, for defendant in error.

RYAN, J.

Article 1767, Rev. St. 1925, provides that, whenever the Supreme Court shall affirm a judgment or decree of a Court of Civil Appeals, it shall render such judgment or decree as should have been rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals, and shall render judgment against the plaintiff in error and the sureties on his appeal or supersedeas bond, for .the performance of said judgment or decree, and shall make such disposition as to the costs as they may order.

In this case, plaintiffs in error prevailed in the trial court. A majority of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed that judgment and remanded the cause. We concluded that the Court of Civil Appeals was in error in its findings, but, that court having remanded the cause, its judgment to that extent must be respected, and the remand must stand, Davis v. Meckel (Tex. Sup.) 42 S.W.(2d) 417; but we think that, the plaintiffs in error having prevailed in this court as they should have prevailed in the Court of Civil Appeals, if that court had been in accord with our views of the case, they should recover of defendant in error the costs of this court and of the Court of Civil Appeals, and accordingly so recommend; also in all other respects the motions for rehearing filed by plaintiffs in error and defendant in error be overruled.