alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Exhibit 27.1, Financial Data Sheet
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000351721
<NAME>                        Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,701,501
<SECURITIES>                                       547,817
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,078,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                       224,250
<INVENTORY>                                      2,995,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,865,361
<PP&E>                                           9,535,699
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,770,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,198,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,402,581
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           443,647
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,776,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,198,459
<SALES>                                         12,860,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,760,529
<CGS>                                            3,544,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,223,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (661,501)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 254,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,400,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,363,866
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,036,469
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,988,941
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,025,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .80
        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2014

d0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

148540(93)

IDA TOWNSHIP,

Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant-Appellee,

v SC: 148540

COA: 303595

Monroe CC: 09-027194-CZ

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN MOTORSPORTS,

LLC, DARRIN FELKEY, and CHARLES

MUDGE,

Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and

IDA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION,

Counter-Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 28, 

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
Exhibit 10.7

 



 

Form of Non-statutory Stock Option Agreement for Employees in Italy

 

1)              Grant of Option.  This agreement evidences the grant by Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Cubist”), to the undersigned employee of Cubist Pharmaceuticals GmbH (the “Participant”) of an option to purchase the number of shares (the “Shares”) of Cubist common stock (“Common Stock”) set forth in the [DATE] equity incentive award notice provided to the Participant by the Participant’s manager at an exercise price equal to the closing price of Cubist’s common stock on [DATE] (the “Grant Date”).  Unless earlier terminated, the option shall expire on the tenth anniversary of the Grant Date (the “Final Exercise Date”).  The option is governed by Cubist’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2010 Plan”).  The option will become exercisable in equal quarterly installments over the four-year period commencing on the Grant Date.  The option shall expire upon, and will not be exercisable after, the earlier of the Final Exercise Date or the earlier termination of the option under the 2010 Plan.

 

2)              Form of Exercise of Option.  Notwithstanding the option exercise provisions of the 2010 Plan, each election to exercise the option set forth in Section 1(a), and any options previously received from Cubist, must be effected through Cubist’s captive equity plan broker (currently, Bank of America Merrill Lynch) utilizing a cashless exercise process.

 

3)              Provisions of the Plan.  Copies of the 2010 Plan, and related Prospectus, have been furnished to the Participant and are available on Cubist’s intranet site, to which the Participant has access.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Cubist has caused this agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer.

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Cubist   Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Dated:   XXXXX
    	
 
    	
By:   
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   
    	
 
    


 

The undersigned hereby agrees to the terms and conditions of this agreement.

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
PARTICIPANT:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 10.110

                                   AMENDMENT
                                      TO
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS THIRD AMENDMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") to the Employment
Agreement dated as of May 2, 1995, is made and entered into as of this 12th day
of February, 1999 by and between Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Frank T. Curtin of Wickford, Rhode
Island (the "Executive").

         WHEREAS the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment
Agreement dated as of May 2, 1995 (the "Employment Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Company agreed to employ the Executive as its President and Chief
Executive Officer for a three year term;

         WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Second Amendment Agreement to the
Employment Agreement dated as of May 1st, 1998, extending the Executive's terms
of employment for one additional year expiring on May 1, 1999.

         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to further amend and modify
the Employment Agreement, as amended, to provide for a further extension of the
term of the Executive's employment for an additional one year term ending May 1,
2000 and fix his salary for 1999.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of this premises and the following
promises, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

         1.   The Company and the Executive agree that Section 2. Term of the
                                                                  ----
              Employment Agreement, as amended, shall be further amended and
              modified by deleting the words "term of four (4) years" in line
              two thereof and substituting therefor the words "term of five (5)
              years".

         2.   With respect to Base Salary referred to in Section 4(a) of the
                              -----------
              Employment Agreement, as amended, it is agreed that the
              Executive's annual Base Salary as of January 1, 1999 is
              $425,272.00.

         3.   The Employment Agreement, except as expressly modified and amended
              by the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and by this Third
              Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect between the
              parties.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Third Amendment Agreement has been executed by
the Company by its duly authorized officer and attested to by its Secretary and
by the Executive as of the date first above written.

Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company                  Executive


By: /s/ Andrew C. Genor                               /s/ Frank T. Curtin
    -----------------------------------               -------------------------
    Andrew C. Genor                                   Frank T. Curtin
    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Attest


/s/ James W. Hayes, III
---------------------------------------
James W. Hayes, III
Secretary
99-729.

#### State v. Beatty.

Fairfield App. No. 98CA19. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
Opinion issued December 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00793-CR

———————————

IN RE STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Stephen Christopher Scott, has filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to perform its ministerial function to 

hold a hearing and/or rule on relator’s pro se motion for a speedy trial.

1

We dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Stephen Christopher Scott, Cause No. 

1662162, in the 339th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jesse 

McClure, III presiding.
2

Relator has filed his petition for writ of mandamus pro se. However, a review 

of the record establishes that in the underlying case the trial court has entered an 

“Order Appointing Counsel,” stating that relator is indigent and providing him with 

court-appointed counsel. 

Criminal defendants are not entitled to hybrid representation in the same case 

and a “trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions presented by a defendant 

who is represented by counsel.” Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2007). As such, “a trial court's decision not to rule on a pro se motion” is not 

subject to review. Id. Similarly, relator is not entitled to hybrid representation before 

this Court, and relator's pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for 

this Court to review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1995) (because appellant was represented by counsel and was not entitled to hybrid

representation, appellant's pro se supplemental brief presented nothing for review);

Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. 

proceeding) (overruling pro se motion for leave to file mandamus petition because 

relator was represented by appointed trial counsel and not entitled to hybrid

representation).
3

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction.2 All pending motions are dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Adams.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

2 Even if this Court had jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus, we would not grant the relief requested by relator because the record 

does not include any evidence that relator’s motion for speedy trial was actually 

filed or otherwise presented or brought to the attention of the trial court for its 

consideration. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo, orig. 

proceeding) (“Indeed, one can hardly be faulted for doing nothing if he were never 

aware of the need to act.”).
* 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 December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50696 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE DIMAS MEJIA-GOMEZ, also known as Jose Anibol Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-306-ALL-FM

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Dimas MejiaGomez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
April 6, 2016

Ms. Kandace Harvey

President

Snohomish Flying Service, Inc.

9900 Airport Way, Harvey Field (S43)

Snohomish, WA 98296

Dear Ms. Harvey:

This is in response to your November 4, 2015 letter posted to the public docket (No. FAA2012-0607) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Snohomish Flying 

Services, Inc. (Snohomish Flying Services) for an exemption from §§ 120.117 and 120.225

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow

Snohomish Flying Services to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing 

program. That exemption, however, expired July 31, 2014. Therefore, the FAA will treat 

this request as a new petition.

In addition, on July 15, 2013, the FAA published the Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Programs final rule (78 FR 41999) relating to air carrier operators and commuter or ondemand operators that conduct commercial air tour operations. The final rule allows 

operators like you to combine your drug and alcohol testing into one testing program without 

requiring an exemption. A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your information.

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new rule, we will take no further action 

on your petition.
2

I have also enclosed information about how to notify the FAA of your intent to cover both 

programs. If you have any questions, please contact the FAAs Drug Abatement Division at 

(202) 267-8442 or drugabatement@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brandon Roberts

Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1852 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1852

    To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure health 
         insurance coverage continuity for former foster youth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2015

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to ensure health 
         insurance coverage continuity for former foster youth.

    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 ``Health Insurance for Former Foster 
Youth Act''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE CONTINUITY FOR FORMER FOSTER CARE CHILDREN UP TO AGE 
              26.

    (a) In General.--Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(IX) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(IX)) is amended--
            (1) in item (bb), by striking ``are not described in or 
        enrolled under'' and inserting ``are not described in and are 
        not enrolled under'';
            (2) in item (cc), by striking ``responsibility of the 
        State'' and inserting ``responsibility of a State''; and
            (3) in item (dd), by striking ``the State plan under this 
        title or under a waiver of the'' and inserting ``a State plan 
        under this title or under a waiver of such a''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
AbDREISONLY 

'rHE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS • REF ID:A3624'i 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 

AU[';USt 14, 1946 

The Honorable 

The Secrete.ry ot War 

Attent:J.on William D. Hall 

My dear Mr. Secretary: 

7he extenslon GrPnted in th8 application 

of Willia>J? F. Fried.man, Serial No. )+78,193, filod 

~.farch 6, 191~3, under the provisions of r. S. CoC.c, 

Title 35, Section 37, will expire October 16, 1946. 

If no response to th~ rejection of October 

16, 1943, is J"eceived on or before October 16, 191.~f, 

the case will become ab&ndoned under the le.w. 

Slncerely yours, 

·,_ 

} ~ ·_ • I ·" "":; I _,--

,,./-· ri/ l - \....vi.· '· "---'--

First Assistant Cornmis~ioner 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-22-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC. SECTION 1350,
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Calcitech Ltd (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the period ended February 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger Leopard, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 USC. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of the operations of the Company

Dated  November 17, 2003

       /s/ Roger Leopard
------------------------------
         Roger Leopard
    Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
MEMO ROUTING SUP N 'SJ: VAZ& 

OONCJUllBlfNOJ!iB, OB BIMiI.JUI ACrlONB 

, NA•E o_a Tl"'d) \ I"(. ~CT 0 R_ llllTIALS 

OHANl'D.TIOll AND LOCATIOll DATI 

a 

CIRGULATI 

QJOROHIATIOll 

PILI 

IRRIRllATIOR 

NICUSARY 

ACTIOll 

llftE All8 

Rl!TUIUI 

SIE •I 

NNATURll 

NSA on 12-18-2013 ursuant to E. 0. 1352 

OD fOllll 95 Replaces DA NlAJ Fonn 895, 1 Apr 48, and AA-IQ . I fEI SO Fonn 12, 10 Nov 47, which may be usild.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2128 

To require the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

to submit to Congress a report on Inspector General mandates. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2015 

Mr. SASSE (for himself and Mrs. MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity 

and Efficiency to submit to Congress a report on Inspector General mandates. 

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 ‘‘Inspector General 

5 Mandates Reporting Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF INSPECTORS GEN7 ERAL. 

8 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘report9 ing requirement’’ means a report that an Office of InspecVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:25 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2128.IS S2128

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2128 IS

1 tor General is required to complete under the Inspector 

2 General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) or any other provi3 sion of law. 

4 (b) REPORT BY INSPECTORS GENERAL TO CIGIE.— 

5 Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 

6 Act, each Office of Inspector General shall submit to the 

7 Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency 

8 a report, which— 

9 (1) shall include a list of each reporting re10 quirement for the Office of Inspector General; and 

11 (2) may include a list of each reporting require12 ment that the Office of Inspector General rec13 ommends should be modified or repealed. 

14 (c) REPORT BY CIGIE TO CONGRESS.—Not later 

15 than 60 days after the date on which the Council of In16 spectors General on Integrity and Efficiency receives the 

17 reports required to be submitted under subsection (a), the 

18 Council shall submit to Congress a report, which— 

19 (1) shall include— 

20 (A) a list of each reporting requirement 

21 that is common to more than 1 Office of In22 spector General; and 

23 (B) a list, by Office of Inspector General, 

24 of each reporting requirement that is unique to 

25 that Office of Inspector General; and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2128 IS

1 (2) may include recommendations for reporting 

2 requirements that should be modified or repealed. 

3 (d) FORM.—Each report submitted under this section 

4 shall be in unclassified form, but may include a classified 

5 annex. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2026 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2026

  To authorize appropriations for the Global Engagement Center of the 
                          Department of State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 10, 2021

Mr. Portman (for himself and Mr. Murphy) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize appropriations for the Global Engagement Center of the 
                          Department of State.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT 
              CENTER.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $150,000,000 for fiscal year 
2022 for the Global Engagement Center of the Department of State to 
counter foreign state and non-state sponsored propaganda and 
disinformation.
                                 <all>
```
ex10-4.htm



Exhibit 10.4 to Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. 11 June 10-Q


 


AMENDMENT TO MMB


ADVISORY AGREEMENT


 


 


The Advisory Agreement between MMB Global Advisor, and Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., for the provision of various strategic consulting services entered into on the 12th day of August, 2010, is hereby amended to reflect a reduction of four million shares.


 


This Amendment will reduce the total number of twenty-seven million (27,000,000) fully vested Company restricted shares originally contemplated by this Agreement, to twenty-three million (23,000,000) shares. The residual balance of the shares outstanding will be equally apportioned over the remaining months of the Agreement as earned.


 


IN WHITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties represent and warrant that this Amendment is executed by duly authorized representatives of each Party as set forth below effective the 1st day of June, 2011.


 


 



	
MMB Global Advisor


 


Name: /s/Manorama Panigrahi                  


 


Title: Managing Director


 


Date: 7/15/11


 


 

	
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


 


Name: /s/Robin T. Eves                  


 


Title: President & CEO


 


Date: 6/23/11