alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Subpart W Stakeholders Conference Call October 17**  **, 2013**

**ATTENDEES**
E PA: Reid Rosnick, Susan Stahle Environmental Groups: Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch; Jennifer Thurston, INFORM Uranium Industry

/Other: Kim Morrison, Energy Fuels: Steve Cohen, Darryl L iles, Randy Weider, SENES
**UPDATE** Reid began the call with a welcome and b y taking attendance. Reid had one item to share. We have been addressing the OMB comments and will be scheduling a briefing for the OMB desk officer soon. The responses to the comments consist of language changes to the preamble, further clarification of some issues in the Background Information Document and Economic Impact Analy sis and some legal authority questions from an Interagency review of the package. We continue to be on track for a proposed rule in last autumn, although the government shutdown slowed our progress

. Reid will update the expected date of proposal on the website.
**DISCUSSION Sarah Fields**  : Have you requested comments on the proposal from Agreement Stat es, Utah in particular? Have you communicated with the NRC? Have you followed the process for a NEPA review? **Reid** : We have not specifically requested comment from Agreement States. Our process to this point is internal to the federal government. However, when the rule is proposed, we welcome comments from all stakeholders, including Agreement States. We have a communication plan in place to make sure we reach as man y stakeholders as possible. We will not just publish the proposal in the Federal Register and not tell anyone about it. Yes, we have communicated informally

with the NRC over the past few y ears on the status of the proposal. **S usan Stahle**  **:** W e are currentl y involved with OMB through their interagency review process. There are two processes for recei ving comments on this proposal . EPA does not run this first process; OMB is currently in charge of receiving comments from other federal agencies. The individual agencies are not identified to EPA. It is possible that if OMB has requested comment on the package from NRC , NRC may have requested comments from pertinent Agreement States. We would not know of such an activity since OMB, and not EPA, is in charge of this review process

. The second process for receiving comment is EPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking where we publish notice of the proposed rule and ask for comment. We welcome all comments from any stakeholder

.This rulemaking is not subject to a NEPA review. This is a rulemaking under the Clean Air Act,

and is e xempted from the NEPA review process. (NOTE: Sarah Fields and Susan Stahle had an email exchange on this issue. You can find that exchange in the email section of the website) )
**Jennifer Thurston** : Want to reiterate posting of OMB comments/responses on Sub part W website. **Reid** : When we are ready to publish the proposal, we will post OMB’s comments /responses on the website , and they

will also be in the Subpart W docket.
**Next call: Thursday, January 2, 2014**  **at 11 AM Eastern Time.** ___________________________________end____________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,371,437
<SECURITIES>                                10,279,701
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,981,514
<PP&E>                                       2,426,030
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,415,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,002,573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,863,319
<BONDS>                                         12,590
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,466
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,116,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,002,573
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               580,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,490,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,695,313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,695,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,695,313)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
exv10w1







Exhibit 10.1




	 	 	 
	

	 	Commercial Loan Department

P.O. Box 30115

Los Angeles, California 90030-0115






August 8, 2008




Diodes Incorporated

P.O. Box 5097

Westlake Village, CA 91359-5097




Attn: Carl C. Wertz, CFO




Dear Mr. Wertz:



The letter is being sent at the request of your Account Manager, Robert Tietjen, and is to confirm that UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A. (“Bank”) has
agreed to extend the maturity date of the Revolving Line of Credit (“Facility”) granted to Diodes Incorporated (“Borrower”) in the principal amount of
Twenty Two Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100ths Dollars ($ 22,500,000.00) originally made under a certain note dated March 28, 2008, and Credit
Agreement dated February 27, 2003, as amended from time to time, (collectively, the “Agreements”). A copy of the note is attached.



The maturity date of the Facility is hereby extended to December 1, 2008 (“New Maturity Date”) and each related letter of credit expiration date and/or
trade advance date in the Agreements shall be extended to a date which follows the New Maturity Date by the same number of days as the original
expiration date and/or maturity dated followed the original maturity date. The Agreements shall be deemed modified as of the date of this letter to
reflect the New Maturity Date. All other terms and conditions of the Agreements remain in full force and effect, without waiver or modification. This
extension is conditioned upon Borrower’s continued payment of interest as provided in the Agreements.



Each advance request, or Borrower’s continued payments of principal or interest on the outstanding balance of any term loan, constitutes Borrower’s
warranty that no event of default as defined in the Agreements and no condition, event or act which, with the giving of notice or the passage of time or
both, would constitute such an event of default, shall have occurred and be continuing or shall exist.



BANK HAS NOT COMMITTED TO MAKE ANY FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE MATURITY DATE, OR TO RENEW THE FACILITY BEYOND THE NEW MATURITY DATE. ANY FURTHER EXTENSION
OR ANY RENEWAL REMAINS IN THE DISCRETION OF BANK.



If you have any questions, please call your Account Manager, Robert Tietjen, at (818) 595-2096.




Very truly yours,




UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Elsa Lopez
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Elsa Lopez	 	 
	Title:

	 	CLD Officer
#### MISSOURI PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellant, v. J. C. GEORGE et al.

No. 11773.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

July 5, 1940.

McCraw & Holt and Lloyd W. Davidson, Jr., all of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

J. H. Lookadoo and G. W. Lookadoo, both of Arkadelphia, Ark., and Tom W. Campbell, of Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Case remanded for hearing on merits and defendants enjoined from levying or causing to be levied any execution, etc., by virtue of judgment obtained in Supreme Court of Arkansas until hearing on merits in District Court, etc.
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Importance: 

Kevin, 

Livsey, Will <Wiii.Livsey@aa.com> 

Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:42 PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Zapata, Karyn; Karayiannakis, George 

ALO and SUX proposals 

High 

We are standing behind our proposal for the EAS renewals at Waterloo and Sioux City, Iowa. Our priceout model uses 

actual American Eagle Finance data from last year's performance in both cities and is not driven on any kind of block 

hour calculator for flight operational expenses. We did have a typo in block hours for both cities however this has since 

been reconciled using TlOO data from FATS and AE Finance data from MIRS. I appreciate your help in the EAS process 

and I look forward to working together to provide air service to these communities. 

Will Livsey 

Regional Partnerships, Network Planning 

817-967-1743 Office j8i7-681-5158 Mobile 

,. ...... 

( ... :: 

I.· .. 

· .•. •=.,: 

NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). 

If you are not an intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, or take action in reliance upon this message. 

If you have received this in error, please notify me immediately by return email and promptly delete this 

message and its attachments from your computer. 

1
H. J. Res. 64 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

Joint Resolution 

Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (division B of Public Law 

111–68) is further amended by striking the date specified in section 

106(3) and inserting ‘‘December 23, 2009’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
II 

Calendar No. 37 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 188 

[Report No. 115–28] 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the costs of painting portraits 

of officers and employees of the Federal Government. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23, 2017 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mrs. FISCHER, 

Mrs. ERNST, and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

APRIL 24, 2017 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the costs of painting 

portraits of officers and employees of the Federal Government. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminating Govern5 ment-funded Oil-painting Act’’ or the ‘‘EGO Act’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 188 RS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PORTRAITS. 

2 (a) PROHIBITION.—No funds appropriated or other3 wise made available to the Federal Government may be 

4 used to pay for the painting of a portrait of an officer 

5 or employee of the Federal Government, including the 

6 President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, the 

7 head of an executive agency, or the head of an office of 

8 the legislative branch. 

9 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

10 (1) the term ‘‘executive agency’’ has the mean11 ing given the term in section 133 of title 41, United 

12 States Code; and 

13 (2) the term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ includes a 

14 Delegate or Resident Commissioner to Congress. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 37 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 188 

[Report No. 115–28] 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the costs 

the Federal Government. of painting portraits of officers and employees of 

APRIL 24, 2017 

Reported without amendment 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Summary of Non-Emploee Director Fees



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Cambridge Heart, Inc. 
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Fees 
 As previously disclosed in the Company’s 2008 Proxy Statement, non-employee directors receive a fee of $2,500 per in-person meeting of the Board of
Directors and $500 per telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors or committee meeting, and non-employee directors who serve as Chairman of one or more committees of the Board of Directors receive a fee of $3,125 per in-person meeting of the Board
of Directors and $625 per telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors or committee meeting. Each of the Company’s non-employee directors also receives an annual retainer of $15,000, which is paid to directors in equal quarterly installments.

 Subsequent to the filing of the Company’s 2008 Proxy Statement, Mr. Kenneth Hachikian was appointed Chairman of the Board in June
2008. In July 2008, the Board of Directors determined that Mr. Hachikian would receive an additional annual cash retainer of $48,000 paid quarterly for his services as Chairman of the Board.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 8, 2022

No. 04-22-00575-CV

IN RE Donald LEMPAR and Dennis Lempar

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CI05174

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On September 7, 2022, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relators’ 

mandamus petition violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 in that relators failed to 

certify they have properly provided service to all parties to this proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P.

9.5. We ORDER relators to file a document evidencing proper service of relators’ petition in

compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 on or before September 15, 2022.

If relators fail to comply with this order, this proceeding will be dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(c).

It is so ORDERED on September 8, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2022CI05174, styled Donald Lempar, et al, v. Patrick Ballantyne, et al, 

pending in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angelica Jimenez presiding.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50008 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO LARICO SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CR-30-2

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Antonio Larico Smith has requested leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Smith has filed a response to counsel’s motion to withdraw. Our independent review of the brief, Smith’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.No. 06-50008 -2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          25,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  965,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,210
<INVENTORY>                                    997,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,984,346
<PP&E>                                       3,545,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                 712,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,796,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,407,922
<BONDS>                                      1,484,681
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,061,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,796,355
<SALES>                                     10,248,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,278,756
<CGS>                                        9,766,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,916,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,597
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                263,829
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,949
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            177,880
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   177,880
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10731

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL E. SHERMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-269-ALL 

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael E. Sherman appeals the 24-month sentence imposed

following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends

that pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

and United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005), sentences, including those

imposed upon revocation of supervised release, are reviewed

under the reasonableness standard. Further, he argues that the

sentence imposed was unreasonable because it substantially
No. 05-10731

-2-

exceeded the recommended range and the district court’s reasons

for imposing the sentence were insufficient.

This court need not decide the appropriate standard of

review for a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised

release in the wake of Booker because Sherman has not shown that

his sentence was either unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. 

See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006); United States v. Jones,

182 F. App’x 343, 344 (5th Cir. 2006). Sherman was subject to a

two-year statutory maximum sentence upon revocation of his

supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2),

3559(a)(3), and 3583(e)(3). The Sentencing Guidelines

recommended a prison term of between 5 and 11 months based on

Sherman’s Grade C violations and his criminal history category of

III. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Sherman’s sentence, while in

excess of the recommended range, was within the statutory maximum

sentence that the district court could have imposed. Further, a

review of the record demonstrates that the district court

considered the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v.

Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Weese,

No. 05-41366, 2006 WL 2590309 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2006)

(unpublished). Therefore, the sentence was neither unreasonable

nor plainly unreasonable. See Jones, 182 F. App’x at 344. 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
exv10w8






Exhibit 10.8




AMENDMENT NO.1

TO

2004 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

OF NUVASIVE, INC.




     WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “2004
ESPP”); and



     WHEREAS, this amendment to the 2004 ESPP (this “Amendment”) on September 25, 2008 (the
“Effective Date”) was adopted in accordance with Section 26 of the 2004 ESPP;



     NOW THEREFORE, the 2004 ESPP is amended as follows:



     1. Effective as of the first Purchase Period commencing after the Effective Date, Section
10(a) of the 2004 ESPP is amended in its entirety to read as follows:




A participant may decrease the rate of payroll deductions during an
Offering Period by filing with the Company a new authorization for
payroll deductions, in which case the new rate shall become effective for
the next payroll period commencing after the Company’s receipt of the
authorization and shall continue for the remainder of the Offering Period
unless changed as described below. Such change in the rate of payroll
deductions may be made at any time during an Offering Period, but not
more than one (1) change may be made effective during any Purchase
Period. A participant shall not be entitled to increase his or her rate
of payroll deductions during a Purchase Period. A participant may
increase or decrease the rate of payroll deductions for any subsequent
Purchase Period by filing with the Company a new authorization for
payroll deductions prior to the beginning of such Purchase Period, or
such other time period as specified by the Committee.



     2. Effective as of the Effective Date, Section 11(a) of the 2004 ESPP is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:




No participant shall be entitled to purchase stock under the Plan at a
rate which, when aggregated with his or her rights to purchase stock
under all other employee stock purchase plans of the Company or any
Subsidiary, exceeds $25,000 in fair market value, determined as of the
Offering Date (or such other limit as may be imposed by the Code) for
each calendar year in which the employee participates in the Plan. This
limit means that the maximum purchase price for shares purchased during a
calendar year is $21,250 assuming a 15% discount pursuant to Section 9.
The Company shall automatically suspend the payroll deductions of any
participant as necessary to enforce such limit provided that when the
Company automatically resumes such payroll
deductions, the Company must apply the rate in effect immediately



 









 






prior
to such suspension. This limitation shall apply on a calendar year by
calendar year basis and no unused portion of this limitation may be used
in subsequent calendar years.



     3. Except as amended by this Amendment, the 2004 ESPP shall remain unchanged and in
full force and effect.



     4. Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment, terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms in the 2004 ESPP.