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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1985 

To prohibit treatment of gray wolves in Washington, Oregon, and Utah 

as endangered species, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. NEWHOUSE (for himself, Mr. WALDEN, and Mr. STEWART) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit treatment of gray wolves in Washington, Oregon, 

and Utah as endangered species, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Pacific Northwest 

5 Gray Wolf Management Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TREATMENT OF WOLVES IN 

7 WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND UTAH UNDER 

8 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any wolf in a covered State shall 

10 not be treated under any status of the Endangered Species 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1985 IH

1 Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including as an 

2 endangered species, a threatened species, an essential ex3 perimental population, or a nonessential experimental pop4 ulation. 

5 (b) EXCLUSIVE COVERED STATE MANAGEMENT AU6 THORITY.— 

7 (1) EXCLUSIVE STATE MANAGEMENT AUTHOR8 ITY.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 

9 covered State shall have exclusive authority to man10 age wolves within the borders of that covered State. 

11 (2) PROTECTION BY COVERED STATES.—A cov12 ered State may not provide protections to wolves 

13 that is greater than the protections that would be 

14 provided under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

15 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) if subsection (a) and para16 graph (1) of this subsection did not apply. 

17 (3) REIMBURSEMENT BY COVERED STATES.— 

18 Nothing in this Act precludes any State from reim19 bursing the owner of livestock for any loss of live20 stock that results from depredation by wolves, or 

21 that derives from wolves, that were introduced into 

22 the wild. 

23 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1985 IH

1 (1) STATE.—The term ‘‘covered State’’ means 

2 each of the States of Washington, Oregon, and 

3 Utah. 

4 (2) WOLF.—The term ‘‘wolf’’ means any spe5 cies, subspecies, or population segment of Canis 

6 lupus. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Bugs pay for days of steady reservoir releases

to reduce costs to hydropower customers and sustain funds to 

maintain infrastructure

David E. Rosenberg

Moazzam Rind

david.rosenberg@usu.edu

rosenberg.usu.edu

Aden Arnold Rosenberg

Jan. 3, 2023
Key Ideas

1. Conflict => Time & Stress, Administered

2. Move days of steady flows to 

Spring/Fall months.

3. Create ecosystem fund to compensate 

for releases that help bugs.

Revenue

Pay 

down 

debt

Lowcost 

energy

Bug 

flows

Negative 

Feedback
Idea 1. Quantify Hydropower – Bug conflict (August)

Loss Revenue

Days, Month, 

elease volume

rns, 3 day-types, 

er day-type.

per month. 

 720 hourly 

MAX 

for Steady 

Monthly r

•

•

2 flow patte

2 periods p

12 choices

Compare to

choices.
Idea 2. Shift Days of Steady Releases to Spring/Fall Months

Revenue loss

($ million)

Season Days of Steady Releases per Month

4 8 9 15

May, June, July, 

August $0.3 $1.9 $2.7 $5.0

March, April, 

September, October $0.5 $1.5 $1.6 $2.6
Idea 3. Create Eco Budget, Let Ecologists pick Months & No. of Days 

Revenue loss

($ million)

Season Days of Steady Releases per Month

4 8 9 15

May, June, July, 

August $0.3 $1.9 $2.7 $5.0

March, April, 

September, October $0.5 $1.5 $1.6 $2.6
Next Steps

 Present to AMP

 Update energy prices

 Validate with GT-Max

May also help move sediment 

and control invasive fish

More at http://rosenberg.usu.edu

david.rosenberg@usu.edu Save our 

colleagues

time & stress

Public wants 

ecosystems and 

low-cost energy
Revenue

Pay 

down 

debt

Lowcost 

energy

Bug 

flows

Eco fund
Flow offset => point of collaboration

0.83 maf per month
nk-ex101_98.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

March 31, 2020

 

Immuno-Oncology Clinic, Inc.

2040 E. Mariposa Avenue

El Segundo California 90245

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

Reference is made to that certain letter agreement made effective as of July 1, 2019 by and between Immuno-Oncology Clinic, Inc. (the “Clinic”) and NantKwest, Inc. (“Nant”) (the “Letter Agreement”). Tara Seery, MD and Chaitali Nangia, MD (together, “Investigators”), while not parties hereto, are nevertheless executing this Amendment to the Letter Agreement (the “Amendment”) to acknowledge that they have read and understood this Amendment in its entirety and agree to comply with the terms and conditions hereof.

In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 2(a) of the Letter Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the below:




 

(a)Payment of Research Fee.  In consideration of the Services to be performed, Nant hereby agrees to pay to the Clinic during the Initial Term (as defined below) a research fee (the “Research Fee”) of up to Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($7,500,000), payable as follows: (i) Three Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($3,750,000) shall be paid as soon as practicable but in any event no later than ten (10) business days of the Effective Date; (ii) One Million Eight Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($1,875,000) shall be due and payable on October 1, 2019; and (iii) a conditional payment of One Million Eight Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($1,875,000) shall be due and payable on the later of (x) January 1, 2020 and (y) such time, if any, that the payments made pursuant to Sections 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii) hereunder have been earned by the Clinic through the performance of Services. The parties acknowledge and agree that, to the extent the fair market value of Services performed by the Clinic during the Initial Term is less than the amounts paid by Nant pursuant to Sections 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii) hereunder, then Nant shall have no further payment obligation.


	
 
	
2.
	
All capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the same meaning as such capitalized terms in the Letter Agreement.




 


	
 
	
3.
	
If there are any conflicts between the Letter Agreement and this Amendment, this Amendment shall be controlling.




 

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]

 

 

 



 

Please kindly countersign below to confirm your agreement with the foregoing terms and conditions.

 

Sincerely,

 

 


	
NantKwest, Inc.
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Steven C. Yang
	
 
	
 

	
Name:
	
 
	
Steven Yang
	
 
	
 

	
Title:
	
 
	
General Counsel
	
 
	
 




 

 

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

 


	
Immuno-Oncology Clinic, Inc.
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Leonard Sender
	
 
	
 

	
Name:
	
 
	
Leonard Sender
	
 
	
 

	
Title:
	
 
	
President
	
 
	
 




 

 

INVESTIGATORS:

 


	
Tara Seery, M.D.
	
 
	
Chaitali Nangia, M.D.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/ Tara Seery
	
 
	
/s/ Chaitali Nangia

	
Signature
	
 
	
Signature




 

2
Page 1 – DECLARATION OF JESSE MERRITHEW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND ALLOW SELF-REPRESENTATION 

Jesse Merrithew, OSB No. 074564 

Email: jesse@lmhlegal.com 

Levi Merrithew Horst PC 

610 SW Alder Street, Suite 415 

Portland, Oregon 97205 

Telephone: (971) 229-1241 

Facsimile: (971) 544-7092 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

 

 

 

JAKE RYAN,

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: 3:16-CR-00051-BR-26 

DECLARATION OF JESSE 

MERRITHEW IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AND ALLOW SELFREPRESENTATION

 

 The undersigned, Jesse Merrithew, appointed counsel for the defendant herein, hereby 

swears and affirms under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct: 

1. I am the attorney of record for the above-named defendant. I make this declaration in 

support of his concurrently filed Motion to Withdraw and Allow Self-Representation. 

2. A sentencing hearing, presumably the final hearing in district court on this matter, is 

scheduled for tomorrow, January 24, 2018. 

3. Mr. Ryan contacted me by phone yesterday evening. He requested that I withdraw 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2418 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 – DECLARATION OF JESSE MERRITHEW 

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AND ALLOW SELF-REPRESENTATION LEVI MERRITHEW HORST PC 

 610 SW Alder Street, Ste 415

 Portland, Oregon 97205 

from his case and he be allowed to represent himself in any further proceedings. 

4. I made the CJA Panel office aware of Mr. Ryan’s request. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2018 

 By: /s Jesse Merrithew 

 Jesse Merrithew, OSB No. 074564 

 Attorney for Jake Ryan 

 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2418 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT (10)-3
 
                                          January 19, 1998
 
Mr. Michael D. Martin
Executive Vice President and
  Chief Financial Officer
HEALTHSOUTH Corporation
One HealthSouth Parkway
Birmingham, AL 35243
 
Dear Mike:
 
     In connection with your acceptance to serve MedPartners, Inc. ("Company")
as a consultant, and as compensation for the responsibilities and duties that
you will perform at the direction of Richard Scrushy, the Chairman and Acting
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, on January 19, 1998, the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company granted you an option to
purchase five hundred thousand (500,000) shares of the Company's Common Stock,
par value $.001 per share ("Option"). The terms of the Option are fully set
forth in the Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement attached hereto.
 
     It is understood that you will serve the Company as a consultant for an
initial term of six months, during which time you will work with Richard to
develop and execute a strategy for revitalizing the Company. Thereafter, it is
expected that you will continue to serve the Company as needed, at the request
and direction of Richard.
 
     It is our belief that the next six months will be a turning point for the
Company and your contribution will be an integral part of the Company's
progress.
 
                                          Very truly yours,
 
                                          Charles W. Newhall III
                                          Chairman, Compensation Committee
Exhibit 10.1


 


DIVERSIFIED HEALTHCARE TRUST


 


Summary of Trustee Compensation


 


The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation
of the Trustees of Diversified Healthcare Trust (the “Company”) for services as Trustees, which is subject
to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board,
as applicable:


 


·      Each
Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $75,000 for services as a Trustee. The annual fee for any new Independent Trustee
is prorated for the initial year.


 


·      Each
Independent Trustee who serves as a committee chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating
and Governance Committee receives an additional annual fee of $17,500, $12,500 and $12,500, respectively. The committee chair
fee for any new committee chair is prorated for the initial year.


 


·      The
Lead Independent Trustee receives an additional annual cash retainer fee of $15,000 for serving in this role.


 


·      Each
Trustee receives a grant of 10,000 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first Board
meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on
the day of the first Board meeting attended).


 


·      The
Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out
of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
NUMBER 13-10-00024-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

LEYDIANA ZUNIGA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 404th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Leydiana Zuniga, attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for

theft. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed 

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a 

timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the 
2

merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on September 28, 2009. Appellant 

filed her notice of appeal on November 25, 2009. On March 10, 2010, the Clerk of this 

Court notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected and that 

the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the 

date of receipt of the Court=s directive. Appellant has not filed a response to the Court=s 

directive. 

Unless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed 

within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after 

the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a 

timely motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety 

days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2). 

The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the 

deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying 

with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3.

Appellant=s notice of appeal, filed fifty-eight days after sentence was imposed, was 

untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Slaton, 981 S.W.2d 

at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing a post-conviction writ 

of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the 

availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
3

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, ' 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

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

Delivered and filed the 27th

day of August, 2010.
# C_2019112EN.01004702.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

---

Action brought on 7 February 2019 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)

(Case T-74/19)

(2019/C 112/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Boot Limited (Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark DENIM HUNTER — Application for registration No 14 649 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 849/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reverse the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reverse the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs including cost incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs including cost incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | The Board of Appeal has erred in finding that a risk of confusion exists between the marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal has erred in finding that a risk of confusion exists between the marks.

---
Exhibit 10.1


 


Reference: Renewal of Employment Agreement dated March 7, 2020
(the “Employment Agreement”)


 


By signing below both parties agree to renew the term of the Employment
Agreement until March 7, 2022. Except as expressly set forth herein, all terms of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect,
and constitute the legal, valid, binding and enforceable obligations of the parties thereto.


 


Executive:


 


	By:	/s/ Shanchun Huang	 
	 	Shanchun Huang	 
	 	 	 
	Future FinTech Group Inc. 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Yongke Xue	 
	Name:  	Yongke Xue	 
	Title:	Chairman of the Board
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 12-1349 NUPUR PATEL, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on February 1, 2013, is amended as follows:
On page 14, lines 9-11, replace "Consequen t l y , we hold that the BIA erred in finding Patel removable, and need not decide whether he would be eligible for a waiver." with "Consequently, we hold that the BIA erred in finding Patel r e mo vable on the ground that the record of conviction revealed an intent to cause a permanent deprivation, and we need not decide whether he would be eligible for a waiver."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

TERRY ELIZABETH SILVA, 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 2275 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

No. 164 DB 2014 

Attorney Registration No. 42470

(Delaware County) 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2016, upon consideration of the Report and 

Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, Terry Elizabeth Silva is suspended from 

the Bar of the Commonwealth for a period of three years, and she shall comply with all 

the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board 

pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            5143
<SECURITIES>                                     11134
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7552
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       2931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 27369
<PP&E>                                            2943
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   31288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8948
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         25432
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3092)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     31288
<SALES>                                           8518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8518
<CGS>                                             2046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     7576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (170)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (934)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (934)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                                Dean MacIntosh
                            Compensation Agreement

  The Following agreement was adopted by the Board of Directors of Lumisys
          Incorporated pursuant to a Written Consent Dated May 1, 2000

1.  New Base Salary. $165,000, effective 3/1/2000.
    ----------------
2.  1999 Incentive. The Board of Lumisys has agreed to accelerate the vesting
    ---------------
    of options so that the total 41,670 shares subject to the performance-based
    option granted November 1, 1999 to Dean MacIntosh will be vested. MacIntosh
    will be granted 57,624 new options upon approval by the compensation
    committee of the board of directors so that the total number of unvested
    options granted to MacIntosh will be 75,000 shares. The option will be
    priced at the closing market price of Lumisys common stock on the date of
    grant. The shares granted will vest monthly on a pro-rata basis over 5
    years. The base vest date for both options will be 3/1/00.
3.  Incentive for sale Lumisys Inc. The success fee for the sale of the Lumisys,
    ------------------------------
    excluding AuntMinnie.com will be 1% of the net proceeds to Lumisys for any
    transaction up to $50 million and additionally, 2% of any incremental net
    proceeds to Lumisys above $50 million. The incentive will be paid in cash as
    soon as feasible, but not to exceed 30 days from the date Lumisys receives
    proceeds from the transaction.
4.  Incentive for continuation of employment if Lumisys is not sold. If, by
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    March 1, 2001, Lumisys has not been sold, MacIntosh will be paid an amount
    equal to 50% of his current annual salary ($82,500). If a sale of Lumisys is
    consummated after March 1, 2001, and MacIntosh is still an employee of
    Lumisys, the incentive pay for continuation of employment will be deducted
    from the incentive for sale of Lumisys to be paid.