alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ayele ASHEBER, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-74338.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 7, 2004.

Edward W. Pilot, Esq., Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before NOONAN, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER SUBSTITUTING MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

The memorandum disposition previously filed March 16, 2004 is withdrawn and replaced by the disposition filed concurrently with this order.

Petitioner’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Pursuant to the substituted disposition, the clerk is directed to stay the mandate for ninety days from the filing of this order. Petitioner’s petition for alternative relief is otherwise denied.

Judge Kleinfeld dissents from the stay of mandate, the taking of judicial notice, and the withdrawal and replacement of the disposition. He would deny the petition for alternative relief in its entirety.

The panel has unanimously voted to deny petitioner’s petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing is denied.
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

NABORS INDUSTRIES LTD.

2013 STOCK PLAN

 

WHEREAS, Nabors Industries Ltd. (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the Nabors Industries Ltd. 2013 Stock Plan (the “Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of February 22, 2019:

 

1.                                      Section 4(c) shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor:

 

“(c) The aggregate number of Shares with respect to which Awards under this Plan (including Awards payable in cash but denominated in Shares, i.e., cash-settled Restricted Stock Units or SARs) may be granted to any individual Participant during any calendar year shall not exceed 3,000,000; provided, however, that the foregoing limitation shall not apply to Awards granted on or after January 1, 2019. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall any individual Award (other than Awards that may by their terms be paid or settled solely in cash) be granted under this Plan with respect to a number of Shares that exceeds one percent of the Company’s total issued and outstanding Shares as of the date of grant.”

 

2.                                      As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.

 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank;

Signature Page Follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed this 22nd day of February, 2019, effective for all purposes as provided above.

 

	
 
    	
NABORS INDUSTRIES   LTD.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/Mark   D. Andrews 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Mark D.   Andrews
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Corporate   Secretary
    


 

SIGNATURE PAGE TO

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 

NABORS INDUSTRIES LTD. 2013 STOCK PLAN
ex10-2.htm


    Exhibit 10.2

     

    LOJACK CORPORATION 401(k) RETIREMENT
PLAN

    ______________________________________________

    


    SECOND AMENDMENT TO 2008
RESTATEMENT

    ______________________________________________

    


    LoJack
Corporation (the “Company”) hereby amends the LoJack Corporation 401(k)
Retirement Plan, as most recently amended and restated, this amendment effective
as of January 1, 2009 (the “Plan”).

     

    *     *     *     *     *

     

    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      	 
      	
                              1.

                            	
                              Section
      31(b) of the Plan’s Adoption Agreement (FORMULA FOR DETERMINING EMPLOYER
      MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS) is hereby amended to read as
    follows:

                            
	 	 	 
	 
      	
                               

                            	      
                              b.  x 

                            	
                              The
      Employer may make matching contributions equal to a discretionary
      percentage, to be determined by the Employer, of the Participant’s
      Elective Deferrals.  Such discretionary percentage may vary
      depending upon a Participant’s Years of Service for Vesting
      purposes.

                            
	 
	
                                
      *     *     *     *     *

                            
	 
      	
                              2.

                            	
                              Further Amendments.  Except as
      hereinabove specifically amended, all provisions of the Plan shall
      continue in full force and effect; provided, however, that the Company
      hereby reserves the power from time to time to further amend the
      Plan.

                               

                            


                    

                  

                

              

            

          

        

      

    

    
       

       

        
*     *     *     *     *

    

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has
caused this Second Amendment to 2008 Restatement to the Plan to be executed in
its name and on its behalf this 26th day of March, 2009.

     

    
      	 
      	
              LOJACK
      CORPORATION

            
	 
      	
              By: /s/ Richard T.
      Riley          
      

            
	 
      	
              Name: Richard T.
      Riley

            
	 
      	
              Title: Executive
      Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,429,207
<SECURITIES>                                15,544,257
<RECEIVABLES>                                  691,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,430
<INVENTORY>                                      9,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,179,020
<PP&E>                                       7,059,101
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,046,292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,299,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,961,588
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,945
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,329,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,299,322
<SALES>                                      1,591,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,043,990
<CGS>                                          652,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  652,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,735,337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,343,812)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,343,812)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (1,447,967)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,791,779)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.75)


</TABLE>
EX PARTE Michael Antonio LIVINGSTON

CR-16-0238

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Mobile Cir. Ct.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth C. Hynes, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 667]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered September 16, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of felony driving while intoxicated in satisfaction of an indictment charging him with two counts of felony driving while intoxicated and the traffic infraction of operating a motor vehicle with a fractured windshield. As part of the plea offer, the People agreed to recommend a split sentence of five years’ probation and a term of incarceration of six months. County Court did not agree to impose a specific sentence at that time but advised defendant that a presentence investigation report would be ordered and that the court would fashion a sentence, which could be up to four years in state prison, based upon that report. Defendant accepted the plea offer and, as a part of the plea agreement, agreed to waive his right to appeal everything except for the sentence. At sentencing, County Court declined to follow the People’s recommendation and imposed a sentence of l1⁄3 to 4 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

We reject defendant’s claim that County Court failed to abide by the terms of the plea agreement by sentencing him to a term of imprisonment greater than the sentence recommended by the People. The record reveals that County Court did not commit to any particular sentence at the time of the plea but, rather, advised defendant that it had wide latitude in sentencing and could impose a term of incarceration of up to four years. In view of this, we find that there was no breach of the plea agreement *(see People v Rawdon,*296 AD2d 599, 599 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 771 [2002]). Consequently, there was no reason for County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Larry SAMPSON, DOC #T30300, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3319

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jessie MIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3473

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Ronald J. PRYOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-917

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 8, 2017

FOR APPELLANT: Ronald J. Pryor, pro se, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEE: Candace Scott Appleton (Varuni Nelson, Arthur Swerdloff, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for ‘ Bridget M. Rohde, Acting United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Ronald J. Pryor, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Brodie, J.) in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. Pryor seeks review of the Commissioner’s determination that Pryor made $15,922.54 in unreported earnings in 2008. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings,- to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

We review de novo the District Court’s judgment on the pleadings, and examine the entire administrative record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s determination and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard. Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir. 2010). For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we conclude that the Commissioner’s determination was supported by *43substantial evidence. In a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Pryor failed to credibly rebut the evidence offered by the Commissioner that documented his employment and earnings in 2008. The new evidence Pryor submitted to the Appeals Council “does not contradict the ALJ’s finding.” Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1996). And the evidence submitted for the first time to the District Court and to this Court is either not material or duplicative of evidence already in the record. Remand is therefore not warranted. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Pollard v. Halter, 377 F.3d 183, 193 (2d Cir. 2004). Because a reasonable factfinder could find that Pryor earned $15,922.54 in wages in 2008 and would not “have to conclude otherwise,” we accept the Commissioner’s determination. Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).

We have considered Pryor’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
David T. ROSS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0411

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
STATE EX REL. Rickey Lionel LAURANT v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0584

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

*561Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02778]



[[Page 7845]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; AD Resources.
    Date: March 21, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Greg Bissonette, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway 
Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1622, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#096b607a7a66676c7d7d6c6e6b496468606527676061276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e6c677d7d61606b7a7a6b696c4e636f67622060676620696178">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 4, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02778 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT

    THIS  AMENDMENT TO OPTION  AGREEMENT (the  "Amendment")  is made and entered
into this 22nd day of December  1999,  by and between  Flanders  Corporation,  a
North  Carolina  corporation  (formerly  known  as  Elite  Acquisitions,   Inc.)
("Flanders  Corporation"),  Flanders Filters, Inc., a North Carolina corporation
("Flanders  Filters")  (Flanders  Corporation and Flanders Filters are sometimes
hereinafter  collectively  referred  to as  the  "Company"),  and  Steven  Clark
("Clark" or the "Executive"). In this Amendment, Flanders Corporation,  Flanders
Filters, and Clark, together with their successors and permitted assignees,  are
separately referred to as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

    WHEREAS,  Flanders  Corporation,  Flanders Filters and Clark entered into an
Option Agreement (the "Agreement") dated February 22, 1996.

    WHEREAS,  Flanders  Corporation,  Flanders  Filters  and Clark  amended  the
Agreement on December 22, 1999; and

    WHEREAS, Flanders Corporation,  Flanders Filters and Clark desire to further
amend the Agreement upon the terms provided herein.

    NOW,  THEREFORE,  for good  and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  and
sufficiency of which is hereby  acknowledged,  the Parties hereby agree to amend
the Agreement as follows:

    1.  AMENDMENT TO EXPIRATION DATE.

    The expiration date of the Option Agreement shall end on February 22, 2006.

    2.  NUMBER OF SHARES

    The number of shares shall remain 1,000,000 which may be purchased  pursuant
    to the Agreement.

Dated: 12/22/99                         /s/ Steven K. Clark
                                        Steven K. Clark
Exhibit 12.3
TREESOURCE INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF REGISTRANT'S NET INCOME (LOSS)
TO AVERAGE STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (DEFICIT)
(In Thousands, Except Ratios)



<TABLE>

                                                               YEAR ENDED APRIL 30,
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           1999          1998          1997          1996          1995
                                        ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------
<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
NET INCOME (LOSS)                       $ (10,246)    $ (12,150)    $   8,970     $  (6,044)    $   3,700

                                        ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

AVERAGE STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
  (DEFICIT)
 Beginning of period                    $   4,093     $  18,434     $  11,686     $  20,076     $  18,512
 End of period                             (7,816)        4,093        18,434        11,686        20,076

   Average                              $  (1,862)    $  11,264     $  15,060     $  15,881     $  19,294

                                        ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

RATIO OF NET INCOME (LOSS) TO
 AVERAGE STOCKHOLDERS'
 EQUITY (DEFICIT)                           550.4%       (107.9)%        59.6%        (38.1)%        19.2

</TABLE>
IRISORIHUELA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Matthew MCGEE & B & B Professional Plumbing, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5033

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 10:14 AM

To: 'info@siliconvalleyuav.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'; Hightower, Gerald CTR (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Shawn Maylen dba Silicon Valley UAV 

(FAA-2015-2362)

October 2, 2015 

Dear Mr. Maylen: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-2362). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

On page four of your petition, you stated that you will conduct unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations 

over ‘stadium events’. 

 Provide a detailed operations plan of conducting UAS operations at stadium events, including where the 

stadium operations will be conducted. 

 If you wish to remove ‘stadium events’ from your petition, you can do so by responding to this email or 

on your docket. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by October 16, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
Current as of December 2017

Learn more at www.nationalguard.mil

Point of Contact: NGB Public Affairs at (703) 607-2584

NG Cyber Defense Team

Why a Cyber Defense Team 

• The Department of Defense depends on

cyberspace to execute its national

security mission; provide a timely

response to crisis or contingency

operations; project power abroad and

ensure the safety of our troops.

• Governors have the authority to

command National Guard cyber

forces just like other National Guard

capabilities when in a state status.

Cyber Defense Team Mission 

• Defensive Cyberspace Operations (DCO)

• Cyber Command Readiness Inspections

(CCRI)

• Vulnerability assessments

• Cyber opposing force (OPFOR)support

(threat emulation)

• Critical infrastructure assessment

• Theater security cooperation

• Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) support

Cyber Defense Team Facts 

• The Air National Guard currently has 7 Network Warfare

Squadrons, 2 Information Operations Squadrons, 1 Information

Aggressor Squadrons and a small number of other more limited

cyber capable units

• Cyber threats primarily exist in three categories: exploitation,

disruption, and destruction

• Cyber attacks are not only a future threat; the Nation faces the

threat of cyber attack and constant intrusion efforts today

The NG Participates in Two Major Cyber 

Exercises Annually

• Cyber Guard is a United States Cyber Command-hosted

interagency cyber exercise conducted at the Classified level

focusing on critical infrastructure

• Cyber Shield is an unclassified NG-hosted exercise focusing on th

defense of Guard Net and state-directed coordination actions

• The Air National Guard currently has 7 Network Warfare

Squadrons, 2 Information Operations Squadrons, 1 Information

Aggressor Squadron as well as other cyber-capable units.

• The Army National Guard is

establishing a Cyber Brigade with 5

Cyber Battalions, 10 CPTs (one in

each FEMA region), 5 Cyber

Support Companies, and 5 Cyber

Warfare Companies under State

authority (Title 32) between FY16 –

FY22.

• The Air National Guard currently

has 12 Cyberspace Operations

Squadrons