alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Employment Agreement - Robert E. Farrell



 Exhibit 10.51 
  

			
	

	  	 Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

	  

 October 21, 2007 
 Robert Farrell 
 [address] 
 Dear Bob: 
 This letter will confirm the amendment to the severance provisions contained in your letter of employment with Titan dated August 9, 1996 as such provisions were
amended by letter agreement dated December 11, 2007 (collectively, the “Agreement”). Please sign this letter where indicated and return it to Titan, retaining a copy for your records. 
 Section 2(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence and replacing it with the following sentence: If your employment with the Company is
terminated by the Company without Cause or by you for Good Reason, the Company will continue to pay your monthly salary on a regular bi-monthly basis and all options held by you will continue to vest and be exercisable in accordance with the terms
thereof, for twelve (12) months from the date of termination; provided, however, if such termination without Cause of for Good Reason occurs within twelve (12) months following a Change in Control of the Company you shall be entitled to a
lump sum severance payment equal to twenty-four (24) months salary payable within thirty (30) days following termination. 
 The following new
Section 7 is added to the Agreement: 
  

	 	7.	Code Section 208G. Should the Company reasonably determine that the payment of compensation by the Company to the Executive, including but not limited to compensation
payable under this Agreement and/or the Restricted Stock Agreement of even date herewith, would result in the Executive’s receiving an “excess parachute payment” within the meaning of Section 280G(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, as amended, the Company shall reduce the amount of any payment or payments otherwise payable to the Executive, as determined by the Company in its sole discretion, which reduction shall be reasonably determined by the Company to be the
smallest amount which will prevent the Executive from receiving such an “excess parachute payment”. 

  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Marc Rubin
	 Marc Rubin
 Chief Executive
Officer


  

	
	Accepted by:
	
	/s/ Robert Farrell
	Name: Robert Farrell
	
	October 21, 2008
	Date:
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2075 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude corporations 

operating prisons from the definition of taxable REIT subsidiary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2017 

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

corporations operating prisons from the definition of taxable REIT subsidiary. 

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 ‘‘Ending Tax Breaks 

5 for Private Prisons Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CORPORATIONS OPERATING PRIS7 ON FACILITIES FROM DEFINITION OF TAX8 ABLE REIT FACILITY. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 856(l)(3) of the Internal 

10 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2075 IS

1 (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(A) any corporation which— 

4 ‘‘(i) directly or indirectly operates or 

5 manages a lodging facility or a health care 

6 facility, or 

7 ‘‘(ii) directly or indirectly operates or 

8 manages a prison facility or provides serv9 ices at or in connection with a prison facil10 ity, and’’; 

11 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘any lodg12 ing facility or health care facility’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘any lodging facility, health care facility, or prison 

14 facility’’; and 

15 (3) by striking the last sentence and inserting 

16 the following: ‘‘Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to 

17 rights provided to an eligible independent contractor 

18 to operate or manage a lodging facility, a health 

19 care facility, or a prison facility if such rights are 

20 held by such corporation as a franchisee, licensee, or 

21 in a similar capacity and such lodging facility, health 

22 care facility, or prison facility is either owned by 

23 such corporation or is leased to such corporation 

24 from the real estate investment trust.’’. 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2075 IS

1 (b) DEFINITION OF PRISON FACILITY.—Section 

2 856(l)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend3 ed by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

4 ‘‘(C) PRISON FACILITY.—The term ‘prison 

5 facility’ means any correctional, detention, or 

6 penal facility.’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
ex10_1.htm


    
      
        

      

    

    Exhibit
10.1

     

    EDEN
BIOSCIENCE CORPORATION

     

    SUMMARY
OF NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTOR CASH COMPENSATION

    (As of
November 11, 2008)

     

    Nonemployee
directors receive the following cash compensation:

     

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                	 
      	
                        Amount ($)

                      
	
                        Board
      Meeting Fee for all directors (per meeting attended)

                      	
                        250

                      
	
                        Committee
      Meeting Fee for Committee Chairman only (per meeting
    attended)

                      	
                        250

                      


              

            

          

        

      

    

    


    Nonemployee
directors are also reimbursed for their reasonable expenses incurred in
attending meetings of the Board of Directors and its committees.
steam_record - Fw: Gulf Power Company - Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines 

- ICR 

 

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 09:39PM ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Kennedy, Susan Butler" <SKENNEDY@southernco.com> 

Date: 06/25/2010 02:30PM 

cc: "Vick, James O." <JOVICK@southernco.com>, "Markey, Richard M." 

<RMMARKEY@southernco.com>, "Hill, Donna B." <DBHILL@southernco.com>, "Beaty, Kevin L." 

<KLBEATY@southernco.com> 

Subject: Gulf Power Company - Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines - ICR 

The attached is being sent on behalf of Jim Vick... 

Please acknowledge receipt of this message. 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <steam_record@erg.com>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov>

Date: 7/2/2010 8:39 PM

Subject: Fw: Gulf Power Company - Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines - ICR

Attachments: Gulf Steam ICR extension request.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C2E4E9CD... 3/17/2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-29-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                         1,386
<SECURITIES>                                     977
<RECEIVABLES>                                    966
<ALLOWANCES>                                      83
<INVENTORY>                                    1,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,986
<PP&E>                                         3,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,249
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                       72
<COMMON>                                          11
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,366
<SALES>                                        6,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,008
<CGS>                                          3,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   10
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               10
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                      10
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .00
        



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LACEY MARK SIVAK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JAY CHRISTENSEN; et al.

,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 35243

D.C. No. 1:19

- cv

- 00514

- DCN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Idaho state prisoner Lacey Mark Sivak appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his action

alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

for an abuse of discret ion a district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

FEB 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35243

comply with a court order. F erdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Sivak’s action

after warning him that failure to pay the filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis

status would result in dismissal. See id. at 1260

- 63 ( setting forth factors for

determining wh ether a pro se action should be dismissed for failure to comply with

a court order and requiring “ a definite and firm conviction ” that the district court

“ committed a clear error of judgment ” in order to overturn such a dismissal

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ) ; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (an

action may proceed without the payment of filing fees only upon granting of in

forma pauperis status).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time o n

appeal

. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 28.1

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                         CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.

                    Chase Manhattan Credit Card Master Trust


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, National Association ("Chase"), as Servicer pursuant to the Amended
and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1996, (The
"Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), by and between Chase and Yasuda Bank and
Trust Company (U.S.A.), as trustee (the "Trustee"), does hereby certify that:

         1.       Chase is Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

         2.       The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the Pooling and
                  Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to
                  the Trustee.

         3.       This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.05 of the
                  Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

         4.       A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar
                  year ended December 31, 1999, was conducted under my
                  supervision.

         5.       Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my
         knowledge, fully performed in all material respects all its obligations
         under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout such period and no
         material default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or
         is continuing except as set forth in paragraph six below.

         6.       The following is a description of each default in the
         performance of the Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the
         Pooling and Servicing Agreement including any Supplement known to me to
         have been made during each period: None.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 21st day of March, 2000.


                                                    /s/ Keith Schuck
                                                    --------------------------
                                                    Name:  Keith Schuck
                                                    Title: Vice President
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 Drug Enforcement Administration
 By notice dated August 8, 2000, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on August 23, 2000 (65 FR 51331), Calbiochem-Novabiochem Corporation, 10394 Pacific Center Court, Attn: Receiving Inspector, San Diego, California 92121-4340, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleTetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
IMescaline (7381)
IPhencyclidine (7471)
IIPhenylaceton (8501)
IICocaine (9041)
II
 The firm plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances to make reagents for distribution to the biomedical research community. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Calbiochem-Novabiochem Corporation is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Calbiochem-Novabiochem Corporation on a regular basis to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent with the public interest. These investigations have included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, audits of the company's records, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substance Import and Export Act and in accordance with the Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above. Dated: November 20, 2000. John H. King, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Division Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 00-30939  Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Thi 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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

The pane l unani m ous l y c 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 a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CI RCUI T M AR Y S UN DB E R G, P e titio n e r - A p p e llan t, v. C OMM I S S I ON E R OF INT E RNA L REVENUE, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 70538 Tax Ct . N o. 16635- 07 M E M OR AN DU M *

A ppe a l f r om aD e c i s i on of

the U n i t edS t at es T ax C o u rt Subm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B efore: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcuitJu d g es. M ary S un db er g app ea l s pr o se f r om the t ax court ’ s or derdi sm i ss i ng her pe t i t i on f orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r26 U .S .C . § 7 4 8 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . A b ra m s v. C o m m ’r , 814 F. 2d 1356, 1 3 5 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 7 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI L ED DEC 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS09- 70538 2 T h e t ax co u rtp rop erl y co n cl u d edth ati tl ack edj u ri sd i ct i o n b ecau se S u n db e r g w a s n e v e ris s u e daN o ti c e o f D e f ic ie n c y o raN o ti c e o f

D e te rm in a ti o n . See 2 6 U .S .C . § § 6 2 1 3 (a ), 6 3 3 0 (d ); A b ra ms , 81 4 F . 2d at13 57 ( ho l di ng thata pr ef i l i ng not i f

i c a t i on l e tt e rf

r om the I nt e rna l R e ve nue Servi c e w a s notaN ot i c e of D efi ci en cy , an dth erefore, th e t ax co u rth adn o j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er th e t ax p ay er’ s p e ti ti o n ) . S u n db e r g ’ s r e m a in in g c o n te n ti o n s ar e u n p e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RM E D.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report of Gourmet Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),we the undersigned,  Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  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 3(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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.


By: /s/ Fredrick Schulman
     ---------------------------------
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Dated: October 13, 2004

By: /s/ Jeffrey Moore
     ----------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer) and Director
Dated: October 13, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1981 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1981

 To amend the Natural Gas Act to expedite approval of exports of small 
            volumes of natural gas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 18, 2017

Mr. Cassidy (for himself and Mr. Rubio) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Natural Gas Act to expedite approval of exports of small 
            volumes of natural gas, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Scale LNG Access Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF EXPORT OF CERTAIN VOLUMES OF NATURAL GAS.

    Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(c)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``(c) For purposes of'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(c) Expedited Application and Approval Process.--
            ``(1) Free trade agreements in effect.--For purposes of''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Small-scale natural gas exports.--For purposes of 
        subsection (a), any application for the exportation of natural 
        gas in a volume that is equal to or less than 51,100,000,000 
        cubic feet per year of natural gas shall be--
                    ``(A) deemed to be consistent with the public 
                interest; and
                    ``(B) granted without modification or delay.
            ``(3) Exclusions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply 
        to any nation subject to sanctions imposed by the United 
        States.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1383

DALE L. SADLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00689-REP)

Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale L. Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Debra J. Prillaman, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dale L. Sadler appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his complaint. The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Sadler that 

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Sadler

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 

the district court and deny Sadler’s motion to appoint counsel.

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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2023

No. 04-22-00577-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.W., A CHILD

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021PA01534

Honorable Kimberly Burley, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

All previous requests for extensions of time to file briefs requested by appellants J.C. and 

I.W. are GRANTED. The appellant briefs for J.C. and I.W. have been filed.

It is so ORDERED on January 9, 2023.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT