alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable EnergySearch Energy.govWater Power ProgramAbout the ProgramResearch &DevelopmentFinancial OpportunitiesInformation ResourcesPublicationsHydropower VisionHydropower BasicsHow HydropowerWorksHydropowerBenefitsHistoryGlossaryMarine & HydrokineticRelated LinksNewsEventsOffice of Energy Efficiency & Renewable EnergyForrestal Building1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585ABOUT THIS SITEWeb PoliciesPrivacyNo Fear ActWhistleblower ProtectionInformation QualityOpen GovAccessibilityENERGY DEPARTMENTBudget & PerformanceDirectives, Delegations &RequirementsFOIAInspector GeneralPrivacy ProgramSmall BusinessFEDERALGOVERNMENTThe White HouseUSA.govHome»Information Resources»Hydropower Basics» History of HydropowerHISTORY OF HYDROPOWERCareers & Internships EERE Home Contact EERE19401910 1920 1930 1950 1960 19701900Bureau ofReclamationEstablishedU.S. Army Corps ofEngineers BuildHydroelectric PlantsFirst Major PumpedStorage PlantTennessee ValleyAuthorityEstablishedFederal PowerCommission NowIndependentHoover Dam BuiltBonneville PowerAdministrationEstablishedNew Deal IncreasesHydropowerEnvironmenRegulationsLaunchedHistory of HydropowerHumans have been harnessing waterto perform work for thousands ofyears. The Greeks used water wheels for grinding wheat into flour morethan 2,000 years ago. The evolution of the modern hydropower turbine began in the mid-1700s when a Frenchhydraulic and military engineer, Bernard Forest de Bélidor wrote Architecture Hydraulique.In 1880, a dynamo driven by a water turbine was used to provide arc lighting– a technique where an electric spark in the air between two conductorsproduces a light – to a theatre and storefront in Grand Rapids, Michigan,and in 1881, a dynamo connected toa turbine in a flour mill providedstreet lighting at Niagara Falls, NewYork; both of which used direct current technology. The breakthrough ofalternating current, the method usedtoday, allowed power to be transmitted longer distances and ushered in thefirst U.S. commercial installation ofan alternating current hydropowerplant at the Redlands Power Plant in California in 1893. The RedlandsPower Plant utilized Pelton waterwheels driven by water taken from the1902Bureau ofReclamationEstablishedPage 1 of 2History of Hydropower | Department of Energy7/31/2015http://energy.gov/eere/water/history-hydropowerPage 2 of 2History of Hydropower | Department of Energy7/31/2015http://energy.gov/eere/water/history-hydropower
#### Michael B. WHITE, petitioner, v. Collene K. CORCORAN, Chapter 7 Trustee.

No. 17-621.

Jan. 8, 2018.

Case below, 2017 WL 4804418.

*664Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9026 

To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide 

clarification of the notice requirement for use of information. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2020 

Mr. AMASH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 

to provide clarification of the notice requirement for use 

of information. 

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 ‘‘FISA Oversight Cor5 rection Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9026 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR 

2 USE OF INFORMATION. 

3 (a) TITLE I.—Section 106(f) of the Foreign Intel4 ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806(f)) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘only where such disclosure is nec6 essary to make an accurate determination of the legality 

7 of the surveillance’’ and inserting ‘‘if such disclosure 

8 would likely promote a more accurate determination of the 

9 legality of the surveillance’’. 

10 (b) TITLE III.—Section 305(g) of such Act (50 

11 U.S.C. 1825(g)) is amended by striking ‘‘only where such 

12 disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination 

13 of the legality of the physical search’’ and inserting ‘‘if 

14 such disclosure would likely promote a more accurate de15 termination of the legality of the physical search’’. 

16 (c) TITLE IV.—Section 405(f)(2) of such Act (50 

17 U.S.C. 1845(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘only where such 

18 disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination 

19 of the legality of the use of the pen register or trap and 

20 trace device, as the case may be’’ and inserting ‘‘if such 

21 disclosure would likely promote a more accurate deter22 mination of the legality of the use of the pen register or 

23 trap and trace device, as the case may be’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Glenn SHERARD; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35246

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2018 * Seattle, Washington

Filed March 13, 2018

Rick J. Wathen, Esquire, Attorney, Cole, Lether, Wathen, Leid *&*Hall, P.C., Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

John M. Silk, Esquire, Attorney, Morgan E. Smith, Attorney, Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: RAWLINSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,** Chief District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Nancy Freudenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Glenn and Carol Sherard and Erin and Fred Schlect (collectively, “plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court did not err by finding that the Sherards’ assignment of the replacement cost holdback was invalid. According to their insurance policy with Safe-co, the Sherards were only entitled to the replacement cost holdback if they actually replaced or repaired the damaged property. Because the Sherards did not replace or repair the property, they had no right to the replacement cost holdback. *See Hess v. N. Pac. Ins. Co.,*122 Wash.2d 180, 859 P.2d 586, 589 (1993) (en banc).

2. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of *803Safeco on the Schlects’ contractual and extra-contractual claims. Because the assignment was invalid, the Schlects had no rights under the Sherards’ insurance policy.

3. Plaintiffs did not argue before the district court that Safeco should be es-topped from challenging their assignment on grounds that Safeco did not raise when it originally denied the assignment. Thus, they may not raise the argument for the first time on appeal. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

4. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. We do not address plaintiffs’ arguments to the extent they are based upon these claims.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EX-10.32





 Exhibit 10.32 

[Caribou Biosciences, Inc. Letterhead] 

Confidential 
 June 14, 2019 

Barbara McClung 
 2901 Shasta Road 

Berkeley, CA 94708 
 Dear Barbara: 

In light of your contributions to the Company over the past year, the Board of Directors has approved an increase in your base salary to $365,000 effective
July 1, 2019. Your new target bonus will be 35% effective for the 2019 bonus payment. 
 Thank you for your strategic leadership and continued service
to Caribou. I look forward to tackling further challenges of our growing company with you. 
  

	
	Regards,
	
	 /s/ Rachel E. Haurwitz

	
	Rachel E. Haurwitz, Ph. D.
	President and CEO
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.1
 
                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
          OF FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                            CALCOMP TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                        (Pursuant to Section 242 of the
               General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)


     CalComp Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), does
hereby certify that the first sentence of Article 4 of the Corporation's Fourth
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

             The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation shall
        have authority to issue is One Hundred Thirty Million (130,000,000)
        shares, of which One Hundred Twenty-Five Million (125,000,000) shares of
        the par value of One Cent ($.01) per share, amounting in the aggregate
        to One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000), shall be
        Common Stock and Five Million (5,000,000) shares of the par value of One
        Cent ($.01) per share, amounting in the aggregate to Fifty Thousand
        Dollars ($50,000), shall be Preferred Stock .

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate of
Amendment on this 6th day of July, 1998.
                  ---                   

                                          CALCOMP TECHNOLOGY, INC.


                                          By:  _________________________    
                                               John C. Batterton
                                               Chief Executive Officer

Attest:

_________________________
William F. Porter, Jr.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bitstream Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his or her knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                            |  |  |  |             
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------
|SIGNATURE           |  |  |  | TITLE                                      |  |  |  | DATE        
|                    |  |  |  |                                           
|/s/ Anna M. Chagnon |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer      |  |  |  | May 15, 2007
|Anna M. Chagnon     |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)              |  |  |  |             
|                    |  |  |  |                                           
|/s/ James P. Dore   |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  | May 15, 2007
|James P. Dore       |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)              |  |  |  |             

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version 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 SEC or its staff upon request.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Jul-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     Jul-31-1996        
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             2,997,000      
<SECURITIES>                               0      
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,744,000      
<ALLOWANCES>                               0      
<INVENTORY>                                0      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     966,000      
<PP&E>                           119,844,000      
<DEPRECIATION>                   (12,932,000)      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   112,619,000       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              5,654,000      
<BONDS>                           36,889,000      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0      
<PREFERRED>                                0      
<COMMON>                         107,672,000      
<OTHER-SE>                       (37,596,000)      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     112,619,000       
<SALES>                           27,022,000      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  27,893,000      
<CGS>                              9,577,000      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      16,569,000      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     137,000       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 4,800,000      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    6,387,000      
<INCOME-TAX>                              0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0      
<DISCONTINUED>                            0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (473,000)      
<CHANGES>                                 0       
<NET-INCOME>                       5,914,000      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           $.65      
<EPS-DILUTED>                           $.65      
                                




</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                             673
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                       880
<INVENTORY>                                     47,582
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,336
<PP&E>                                          70,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,732
<BONDS>                                         89,907
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,228
<SALES>                                         95,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,774
<CGS>                                           71,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,638
<INCOME-TAX>                                       998
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,640
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,640
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          10,364
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                        86
<INVENTORY>                                      5,344
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,124
<PP&E>                                          12,137
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,829
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,166
<BONDS>                                         15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,225
<SALES>                                         24,039
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,039
<CGS>                                           14,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (114)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   187
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,559)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,559)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,559)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.52)
        


</TABLE>
Submitted October 12,

appeal dismissed December 14, 2016,

petition for review denied March 2, 2017 (361 Or 238)

#### JEFFREY LEE HALL, *Petitioner-Appellant, v.*Jeff PREMO, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Defendant-Respondent.*

Marion County Circuit Court

14C19528; A160274

385 P3d 90

Jed Peterson and O’Connor Weber LLP filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Appeal dismissed. *Dillard v. Premo,*276 Or App 65, 67, 366 P3d 797, *rev allowed,*360 Or 400 (2016).
No. 12-5129.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10468.

#### Roeder *v.*Kansas.

Ct. App. Kan. Certio-rari denied.
# C_2021289EN.01005201.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/52

---

Action brought on 7 June 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Brito & Pereira (TINTAS BRICOR)

(Case T-317/21)

(2021/C 289/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brito & Pereira (Vizela, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the EU figurative mark TINTAS BRICOR — Application for registration No 17 944 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2021 in Case R 882/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in that, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in opposition proceedings B 3 070 825, granting EU trade mark No 17 944 336 TINTAS BRICOR (figurative) for certain goods and services in Classes 2 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in that, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it confirms the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in opposition proceedings B 3 070 825, granting EU trade mark No 17 944 336 TINTAS BRICOR (figurative) for certain goods and services in Classes 2 and 35;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Incorrect assessment of the proof of use of the marks relied on in support of the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Incorrect assessment of the proof of use of the marks relied on in support of the opposition;

| — | Inconsistency in the statement of reasons on account of its incoherence or internal contradiction, with regard to what the applicant claims to be clear contradictions between paragraphs such as paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 and the final conclusion, in that the promotional, advertising and business management activity in respect of the BRICOR trade mark recognised in those paragraphs is denied in paragraph 56. |
| --- | --- |

—

Inconsistency in the statement of reasons on account of its incoherence or internal contradiction, with regard to what the applicant claims to be clear contradictions between paragraphs such as paragraphs 44, 45 and 46 and the final conclusion, in that the promotional, advertising and business management activity in respect of the BRICOR trade mark recognised in those paragraphs is denied in paragraph 56.

---