alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.32

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT

     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ("First Amendment") is entered into by and between
Telcom Ventures, L.L.C. ("TV") and LCC International, Inc. ("LCC") as of the 1st
day of December 2001 (the "Effective Date") to amend that certain Note issued by
TV, as Borrower, to LCC, as Lender, dated September 30, 1996 (the "Note").

                                     WITNESS

1. LOAN EXTENSION. Effective as of the Effective Date, the first paragraph of
the Note entitled "Payments of Principal and Interest" is hereby deleted and
replaced with the following:


"Payments of Principal and Interest

     The parties acknowledge and agree that the principal amount outstanding
hereunder as of the Effective Date is US$750,262.85, which represents the
principal amount due in 2001 as well as the conversion into principal of all
interest due hereunder through the Effective Date.

     Interest from the date hereof on the principal amount outstanding from time
to time until and after maturity hereof until paid shall be payable at the rate
of LIBOR plus 1.75 percent per annum (determined as provided below). From and
after the date hereof, interest accrued shall be paid by the Borrower to the
Lender on each anniversary of the Effective Date. Interest shall be calculated
on a year of 360 days based upon the actual number of days elapsed.

     Principal shall be payable in one lump sum payment of US$750,262.85 due on
December 1, 2006."

2. PAYMENT ADDRESS. The reference to "2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 800,
Arlington, Virginia 22201" is hereby changed to "7925 Jones Branch Drive,
McLean, Virginia 22102".

3. MISCELLANEOUS. All other terms, conditions and provisions of the Note shall
remain in full force and effect.




<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of
the date first set forth above.

TELCOM VENTURES, L.L.C.



By:           /s/ Rahul Prakash
   -----------------------------------------
Name:         Rahul Prakash
     ---------------------------------------
Title:        President
      --------------------------------------

LCC INTERNATIONAL, INC.



By:           /s/ David Walker
   -----------------------------------------
Name:         David Walker
     ---------------------------------------
Title:        SVP & CFO
      --------------------------------------


                                       2
* Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

No. 96-8362.BOARDMAN PETROLEUM, INC. d.b.a. Red & Jack Oil Company, Plaintiff, CounterDefendant, Appellee.

v. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, De fendant, Counter-Claimant, Appellant. Aug. 18, 1998 Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Georgia (No. CV193-033- DHB); Dudley H. Bowen, Judge. Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and LAY * , Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM: In our prior opinion in this case, Boardman Petroleum Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co., 119 F.3d 883 (11th Cir.1997), we certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: (1) What is the appropriate trigger of coverage under general liability policies such as the ones at issue in this case? (2) Does an "owned or rented" coverage exclusion in general liability policies such as the ones at issue bar coverage of all or a portion of an in sured's claims for indemnification for the cost of a state ordered contamination clean-up wh en that clean-up involves soil and groundwater contamination which has not yet damaged surrounding soil and/or groundwater? The Supreme Court of Georgia did not reach the tr igger of coverage issue in the first certified question because it found that the owned or rented exclusion is dispositive. The Supreme Court of Georgia has answered the second certified question as follows:Where there is no evidence of a reasonable pres ent threat of harm to third-party property, coverage is barred. [Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co., 269 Ga. 326, 498 S.E.2d 492 (1998).] Any other constructi on is contrary to the policy language and would render the owned or rented exclusion m eaningless because in almost every case the policyholder could simply contend that contam ination on its own property presents a threat of future harm to off-site property.... [Therefore,] ... the plain language of the owne d or rented property exclusion bars coverage for indemnification for the cost of a state-or dered contamination clean-up when that clean-up involves soil and groundwat er contamination to property owned or rented by the insured, and does not involve property of a third party, and poses no immediate or imminent threat of off-site contamination. Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co., 269 Ga. 326, 498 S.E.2d 492 (1998). The district court erred in holding that the clean-up costs for contamination on Boardman's leased premises were covered in the insurance policy, despite the exclusion for damage to property that Boardman "owned, occupied or rented." A ccordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in Boardman's favor and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7608
DOUGLAS LEE HUSKETH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-583-5-BO) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Lee Husketh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Douglas Lee Husketh appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Husketh v. Beck , No. CA02-583-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 17, 2002). We deny Husketh’s “motion requesting this court to direct the Department of Corrections to tax Plaintiff’s trust fund for cost of suit.” We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NORTH CLEAR CREEK BELOW CONTINENTAL RESERVOIRLatitude: 37.888Longitude: -107.204Elevation: None

NORTH CLEAR CREEK BELOW CONTINENTAL RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Slumgullion Site Page...



Slumgullion

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande
GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING

August 9, 2023

WEBINAR

https://rec.webex.com/rec/j.php?MTID=m785549bed640b23cddb36a2eeb44f6e4

Call in: 415-527-5035 | Participant Passcode: 2762 465 6477

Meeting Number: 2762 465 6477| Meeting Password: Aug9

DRAFT AGENDA

STARTS AT 2:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT)/ 2:00 p.m. Arizona Time / 3:00 pm Mountain Daylight Time (MDT)

START 

TIME

(Duration)

Wednesday, August 9, 2023 (Day 1) 

Topic, Presenter, and Purpose

2:00

PDT 

(:15) 

Welcome and Administrative: Seth Shanahan, Technical Work Group (TWG) Chair

 Introductions and Determination of Quorum (16 members)

2:15

PDT 

(1:45)

Status Report for Developing a Proposal to Amend the High-Flow Experiment Protocol: Sinjin 

Eberle, FLAHG Chair, TWG Members

 Presentation (15 minutes)

 Q&A, discussion, action (90 minutes)

Proposed motion language: The Technical Work Group accepts the proposal developed through 

the Flow Ad Hoc Group to amend the High-Flow Experiment Protocol and agrees to submit it to 

the Adaptive Management Work Group for their consideration.

4:00

PDT 

(:05)

Public Comment

4:05

PDT

ADJOURN
No. 76-5572.

#### Spates *v.*Connecticut.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
1 of 25ELECTRONICALLY FILED JUN 21, 2017 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT2 of 253 of 254 of 255 of 256 of 257 of 258 of 259 of 2510 of 2511 of 2512 of 2513 of 2514 of 2515 of 2516 of 2517 of 2518 of 2519 of 2520 of 2521 of 2522 of 2523 of 2524 of 2525 of 25
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Amado GARCIA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-8052.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 2007.

Francis Leland Pico, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Cheyenne, WY, David A. Kubichek, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Casper, WY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Amado Garcia, Herlong, CA, pro se.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER*

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

In this *pro se*28 U.S.C. § 2255 prisoner appeal, Petitioner challenges his conviction by a jury on three drug charges. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by a panel of this court in *United States v. Garcia,*71 Fed.Appx. 781 (10th Cir.2003) (unpublished). In his § 2255 petition, he raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel relating to his trial and appeal. The district court determined that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on any of his claims, and it denied his § 2255 petition and his request for a certificate of appealability. The trial court’s thorough Order, filed June 6, 2006, fully and correctly sets forth why it dismissed the petition. We see no reason to repeat that effort.1

To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order to meet this burden, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotation omitted).

We have carefully reviewed Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal, or Petitioner’s filing raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant of a certificate of appealability. For substantially the reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. We do, however, GRANT Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal *in forma pauperis.*

*

This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. Petitioner requested that we hold our decision in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in *Burton v.*Stewart, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 793, 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007). The Supreme Court subsequently ordered the habeas petition in that case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *Id.*Accordingly, that decision has no impact on the instant petition.
# L_2009314EN.01006001.xml

| 1.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 314/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/60

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1175/2009

of 30 November 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aglio Bianco Polesano (PDO))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Aglio Bianco Polesano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Aglio Bianco Polesano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 104, 6.5.2009, p. 16.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY

Aglio Bianco Polesano (PDO)

---
#### Eligio Perez OLIVERA; Consuelo Jimenez-Cruz; Ana Lidia Perez Jimenez; Luis Alberto Perez Jimenez; Angelica Perez Jimenez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75854.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill & Piibe, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, John S. Hogan, Esq., San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *771R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*771MEMORANDUM **

Eligió Perez Olivera, Consuelo Jimenez-Cruz and their children, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the hardship standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) is unconstitutionally vague does not state a colorable due process claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[TJraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

Petitioners’ motion to hold proceedings in abeyance is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
| datetime   | area  |
|------------|-------|
| 2020-08-02 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-03 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-04 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-05 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-06 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-07 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-08 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-09 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-10 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-11 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-12 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-13 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-14 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-15 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-16 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-17 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-18 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-19 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-20 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-21 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-22 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-23 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-24 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-25 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-26 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-27 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-28 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-29 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-30 | 0.0   |
| 2020-08-31 | 0.0   |
| 2020-09-01 | 230.0 |
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00186-CR

Ross Thomas Brantley III

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1091400D)

May 24, 2018

Per Curiam 

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### PEOPLE ex rel. KASSCHAU, Appellant, v. ROOSEVELT et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of Emil ICasschau against Theodore Roosevelt and others. J. O. De la Mare, for appellant. T. Connoly, for respondents.

No opinion. Proceedings affirmed, with costs.
# C_2009291EN.01000701.xml

| 1.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5647 — Advent/GFKL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 291/02

On 23 November 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5647. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5647. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                 UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549
                               ----------------
                              

                                  FORM 10-K/A
                   
                               ----------------

[X]  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

[_]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


                        SUBURBAN OSTOMY SUPPLY CO., INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
<S>                                <C>                           <C>
       MASSACHUSETTS                          5047                   04-2675674
(State or other jurisdiction of    (Primary Standard Industrial   (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)     Classification Code Number)     Identification No.)
</TABLE>
                              75 OCTOBER HILL ROAD
                              HOLLISTON, MA 01746
                                 (508) 429-1000
              (Address, including zip code, and telephone number,
       including area code, of registrant's principal executive offices)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: NONE

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (g) of the Act:


         Title of each class           Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, no par value per share                    NASDAQ


     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceeding 12 months and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.      Yes       No   X

     Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delingquent filers pursuant to Item
405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the
best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy  or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this
Form 10-K.    [X]

     The aggregate market value of shares held by non-affiliates of the
registrant as of November 22, 1996 was $58,755,920.  10,415,750 shares of the
Common Stock of Suburban Ostomy Supply Co. Inc., no par value, were outstanding
on November 22, 1996.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1894 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1894

To authorize the extension of preferential tariff treatment for certain 
                  textile goods imported from Morocco.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2015

  Mr. Carney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the extension of preferential tariff treatment for certain 
                  textile goods imported from Morocco.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TARIFF PREFERENCE LEVEL PROGRAM FOR MOROCCO.

    (a) In General.--U.S. Note 64(b) to subchapter XII of chapter 99 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
            (1) by striking ``shall be as follows:'' and all that 
        follows through ``As used in this note'' and inserting ``shall 
        be 10,000,000 SME for each of the calendar years 2016 through 
        2025. As used in this note''; and
            (2) by striking ``December 31, 2015'' and inserting 
        ``December 31, 2025''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after January 1, 2016.
                                 <all>
```