alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.3

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                      1996 STOCK OPTION/STOCK ISSUANCE PLAN

                             PSW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                     TO THE
                      1996 STOCK OPTION/STOCK ISSUANCE PLAN


                  The PSW Technologies, Inc. 1996  Stock  Option/Stock  Issuance
Plan  (the  "Plan")  is hereby amended, effective March 31, 1998, as follows:

                  1. The second sentence of Article One,  Section V, Paragraph A
is hereby amended to read as follows:

                  The  maximum  number of shares  of Common  Stock  which may be
                  issued  over the term of the Plan shall not  exceed  2,715,000
                  shares.

                  2. Except as modified  by this Plan  amendment,  the terms and
provisions  of the Plan as in effect on the date hereof shall  continue to shall
remain in full force and effect.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PSW Technologies, Inc. has authorized this
Plan amendment  to  be executed  on  its  behalf by its  duly-authorized officer
effective as of March 31, 1998.



                                                PSW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                                                By: /s/ Keith D. Thatcher

                                                Title: VP of Finance, Treasurer,
                                                and Chief Financial Officer
#### HOFFMAN, Respondent, v. HOFFMAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Marie B. Hoffman against Charles L. Hoffman.

No opinion. Order modified, by striking out allowance of $84 for alimony from the commencement of the action to the date of the order, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         434,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,844
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,565,877
<PP&E>                                         800,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,392,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          918,811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       752,537
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,392,169
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,162
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,074
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                       920
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,055
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Healthy Processed Foods Research: Albany, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Albany, California Western Regional Research Center Healthy Processed Foods Research Docs Imaging, Detection, and Sorting Lab







Imaging, Detection, and Sorting (IDS) Lab Welcome to the IDS Lab, a research group within the US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, at the Western Regional Research Center in Albany, CA. Mission: Develop methods to detect and remove defective, contaminated or otherwise undesirable product from agricultural project streams.   These sorting devices will improve the quality of fresh or packaged foods, remove unwanted transmission of materials deleterious to agriculture or health, and/or improve the competitive position of U.S. project in international trade. Such sorters will be in support of U.S. government action agencies and the U.S. food industry. Experience: We have over 20 years of experience in designing and optimizing optical and x-ray imaging methods for detecting a wide range of target contaminants in agricultural commodities, ranging from nuts to meat to grain. We are always interested in new collaborations, please see the links below for more information. Projects & Lab Resources Research Approach/Collaboration/Partnering Lab Publications Staff/Contact Info


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### In re: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION. Donna J. Pickering, Appellant.

No. 10-3848.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) Sept. 14, 2011.

Filed: Sept. 20, 2011.

Andrew M. Hutton, Esq., Blake A. Shuart, Esq., Hutton & Hutton, Wichita, KS, for Appellant.

*628Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Donna J. Pickering appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which denied her claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement. We exercise final order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. *In*re *Diet Drugs Prod. Liab. Litig.,*543 F.3d 179, 184 n. 10 (3d Cir.2008). Because a district court exercises “its equitable authority to administer and implement a class action settlement,” we review for an abuse of discretion. *Id.*An abuse of discretion may be found if the District Court’s decision is based on a clearly erroneous factual finding, an error of law, or an improper application of law to fact. *Id.*

Pickering contends that the District Court abused its discretion by concluding that she failed to establish a reasonable medical basis for the opinion of her attesting physician, Dr. Evans, that she had moderate mitral regurgitation, which would entitle her to Matrix Compensation Benefits. In Pickering’s view, the District Court failed to adequately consider not only the evidence she initially submitted in support of her claim, but also the supplemental evidence she provided to establish a reasonable medical basis for Dr. Evans’ opinion. She contends that the District Court improperly relied on the technical advisor’s medical opinion that she had only mild mitral valve regurgitation, which does not entitle her to benefits, and that there was no reasonable medical basis for Dr. Evans’ claim.

We have carefully reviewed the Show Cause Record developed in this case. Pickering’s contention that the District Court failed to adequately consider the evidence she adduced in the Show Cause Proceeding is belied by the District Court’s comprehensive Memorandum. The assertion that the District Court improperly relied on the technical advisor’s opinion is likewise unpersuasive. The Court scrutinized all of the medical opinions and noted that Pickering had failed to rebut certain assessments that supported the opinions of both the auditing cardiologist and the technical advisor that she did not have moderate mitral regurgitation. Because the evidence of record permits a finding that there may be either a reasonable medical basis or no reasonable medical basis for Dr. Evans’ opinion, we can discern no clear error of fact, which would constitute an abuse of discretion warranting reversal. *See Anderson v. City of Bessemer,*470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

t1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143142

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143142 COA: 302229 Jackson CC: 05-001235-FC ROBERT SCOT T REASTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 14, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of Commission public business meeting.

# DATES:

Friday, July 23, 2021, 12:00 p.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

Meeting to take place by telephone and is open to the public by telephone: 866-556-2439, Conference ID #: 3025132.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Angelia Rorison: 202-376-7700;                         *publicaffairs@usccr.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the Government in                           ( print page 41436)                        Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Commission on Civil Rights is holding a meeting to discuss the Commission's business for the month of July. This business meeting is open to the public. Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, July 23, 2021, is                     *https://www.streamtext.net/​player?​event=​USCCR.*                     Please note that CART is text-only translation that occurs in real time during the meeting and is not an exact transcript.                

## Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Business Meeting

A. Discussion and Vote on Findings and Recommendations for the Disparities in Maternal Health Report

B. Discussion and Vote to Confirm October 22, 2021, as FEMA Field Briefing in Houston, TX

C. Discussion and Vote on Fiscal Year 2022 Business Meeting Calendar

D. Discussion and Vote on Advisory Committee Appointments

E. Presentations from Advisory Committees to the Commission on Recent Reports/Memos

F. Management and Operations
    - Staff Director's Report

III. Adjourn Meeting

 Dated: July 21, 2021.

Angelia Rorison,

USCCR Media and Communications Director.

[FR Doc. 2021-15874 Filed 7-29-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
# Official Journal C 432A/2 De

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 432A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 572 December 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 432A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 572 December 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2014/C 432A/01 | Call for competition for the selection of the T2S Board non-central bank members and the creation of a reserve list — Ref.: PRO-000373 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Central Bank

2014/C 432A/01

Call for competition for the selection of the T2S Board non-central bank members and the creation of a reserve list — Ref.: PRO-000373

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 432A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 3 |

2014/C 432A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Case: 1:02-cv-05118 Document #: 3 Filed: 08/02/02 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:19

Case: 1:02-cv-05118 Document #: 3 Filed: 08/02/02 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:20
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Edward Shaw, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), dated May 25,1984, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment.

*836Order reversed, on the law, defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment denied, indictment reinstated, and matter remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings.

We find that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to support the indictment (CPL 70.10, 190.65, 210.20 [1] [b]; *see, People v Brewster,*63 NY2d 419; *People v Mayo,*36 NY2d 1002). A police officer testified that he had caused a comparison to be made between latent fingerprints found at the crime scene and defendant’s fingerprints and that the comparison resulted in a finding that the latent prints matched those of defendant. In further support thereof, the People submitted a certified copy of the police latent print comparison examination report (CPL 190.30). There was no need for the police officer to further testify as to where he had obtained defendant’s fingerprints (see, *People v Brewster, supra,*p 423). “In the context of the Grand Jury procedure, legally sufficient means prima facie, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt” *(People v Mayo, supra,*p 1004).

Accordingly, the indictment should be reinstated. Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
----

|   | (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 presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Corporation. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Douglas Stewart                                         |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Douglas      Stewart, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                                        |
|   | Date:  May      15, 2008                          |
|   |                                                        |
|   |                                                        |
|   |                                                        |
|   | /s/ Debra A. Geuy                                           |   |
|   | Debra      A. Geuy, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   |
|   |                                                        |
|   | Date:  May      15, 2008                          |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001031003
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-24-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   309,278
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               315,464
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 315,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,186
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                         9,278
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   315,464
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,557
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,557
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,557
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of The Hollow Metal Trust Fund et al., Respondents, v Saw Mill Auto Sales, Inc., Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 347]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 19, 2010, which granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award in the amount of $24,650 plus interest and denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the cross motion granted, the award vacated, and the matter remanded to the arbitrator for a hearing, in accordance with this opinion, to redetermine the attorney’s fees and disbursements to which petitioner is entitled. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 7, 2011, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic in light of the foregoing.

The collective bargaining agreement and the trust agreements between the parties did not require respondent, who prevailed in the arbitration proceeding, to pay the expenses of the litigation other than fees and costs incurred in bringing the underlying federal action to compel an audit. Respondent, however, was never afforded an opportunity to review the invoices upon which the award of legal fees to petitioner was made. These invoices apparently included fees for legal services that were outside the scope of the parties’ agreement. As such, respondent was denied due process and we remand for a hearing to determine the fees in connection with compelling the audit and instruct that respondent be provided all evidence in the record regarding petitioner’s legal fees. Concur — Tom, J.E, Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Roman, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pablo Casiano, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter J. McQuillan, J.), rendered May 18, 1983, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of 12 to 24 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed. Appealable issues were raised in the *pro se*brief submitted by defendant which were considered by the court. They were sufficiently answered in the People’s responding brief. Accordingly, the application by defendant’s assigned counsel to withdraw on the basis of *People v Saunders*(52 AD2d 833) is denied. Defendant’s belated motion for assignment of new counsel to argue orally the points raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief is denied as unnecessary. As noted, the court has fully considered the points raised in the *pro se*brief. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch and Fein, JJ.
#### HOSMER, Appellant v. TIFFANY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Edward S. Hosmer, as trustee, against Burnett Y. Tiffany and another. L. M. Berkeley, for appellant. A. Tulin, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.