alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21377-21378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10586]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2000-010--New York]


Power Authority of the State of New York; Notice of Meetings To 
Discuss Settlement for Relicensing of the St. Lawrence-FDR Power 
Project

April 24, 2001.
    The establishment of the Cooperative Consultation Process (CCP) 
Team and the Scoping Process for relicensing of the St. Lawrence-FDR 
Power Project was identified in the NOTICE OF MEMORANDUM OF 
UNDERSTANDING, FORMATION OF COOPERATIVE CONSULTATION PROCESS TEAM, AND 
INITIATION OF

[[Page 21378]]

SCOPING PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH RELICENSING THE ST. LAWRENCE-FDR POWER 
PROJECT issued May 2, 1996, and found in the <CS>Federal Register 
<RM>dated May 8, 1996, Volume 61, No. 90, on page 20813.
    The following is a list of the tentative meetings for the CCP Team 
to continue settlement negotiations on ecological and local issues. The 
meetings will be conducted at the New York Power Authority (NYPA) 
Robert Moses Powerhouse, at 10:00 a.m., located in Massena, New York.
    The CCP Team will meet:

June 21 and 22, 2001
July 17, 2001
August 21, 2001
September 12, 2001

    If you would like more information about the CCP Team and the 
relicensing process, please contact any one of the following 
individuals:

Mr. Thomas R. Tatham, New York Power Authority, (212) 468-6747, fax 
(212) 468-6141, e-mail: <IT>Tatham,T@NYPA. Gov.
<RM>Mr. Bill Little, Esq., New York State Dept. of Environmental 
Conservation, (518) 457-0986, fax (518) 457-3978, e-mail: 
<IT><a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6334242f0a17170f062324344d2726204d30170217064d2d3a4d3630"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ebbcaca7829f9f878eabacbcc5afaea8c5b89f8a9f8ec5a5b2c5beb8">[email protected]</span></a>
<RM>Dr. Jennifer Hill, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (202) 219-
2797, fax (202) 219-2152, e-mail: <IT><a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#763c1318181f101304583e1f1a1a363033243558301312582325"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86cce3e8e8efe0e3f4a8ceefeaeac6c0c3d4c5a8c0e3e2a8d3d5">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <RM>Further information about NYPA and the St. Lawrence-FDR Power 
Project can be obtained through the Internet at <IT>http://www.stl.nypa.gov/index.htm. <RM>Information about the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission can be obtained at <IT>http://www.ferc.fed.us.

<RM>David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10586 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6319 

To waive the annuity buyback requirement under the Federal Employees 

Retirement Service with respect to certain law enforcement officers involuntarily called or retained on active duty, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. CARNEY (for himself and Mr. CRITZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To waive the annuity buyback requirement under the Federal 

Employees Retirement Service with respect to certain 

law enforcement officers involuntarily called or retained 

on active duty, 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. WAIVER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIRE4 MENT SERVICE ANNUITY BUYBACK REQUIRE5 MENT. 

6 Section 8411(c) of title 5, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 


erowe on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6319 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and (5)’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘(5), and (6)’’; 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(6)(A) If, for any period beginning on or after 

5 September 11, 2001, a law enforcement officer is or 

6 was involuntarily called or ordered to active duty 

7 under section 12301(a) of title 10 (or any other pro8 vision of law) or involuntarily retained on active 

9 duty under section 502(f) of title 32 (or any other 

10 provision of law)— 

11 ‘‘(i) such officer shall be allowed credit for 

12 such period of active duty (as military service); 

13 and 

14 ‘‘(ii) no deposit under section 8422(e) shall 

15 be required for any period for which credit is so 

16 allowed. 

17 ‘‘(B) The Director of the Office of Personnel 

18 Management shall prescribe regulations to carry out 

19 this paragraph.’’. 

20 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATES. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by section 

22 1— 

23 (1) shall apply to any annuity commencing on 

24 or after the date of the enactment of this Act; and 


erowe on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6319 IH

1 (2) shall apply to any annuity commencing be2 fore the date of enactment of this Act only if appro3 priate application is made, in accordance with Office 

4 of Personnel Management regulations, within 2 

5 years after date of enactment of this Act. 

6 (b) RECOMPUTATION.—An annuity commencing be7 fore date of enactment of this Act, for which appropriate 

8 application is made in accordance with subsection (a)(2), 

9 shall be recomputed to reflect the amendments made by 

10 section 1 with respect to amounts payable for months be11 ginning on or after the date on which such application is 

12 made. 

13 (c) SURVIVOR ANNUITY.—A survivor may submit an 

14 application described in subsection (a)(2) for purposes of 

15 a survivor annuity to which such survivor is entitled. 

Æ 


erowe on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 19, 

2017.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-17-00788-CR

IN RE THELONIOUS PAUL HENRY, Relator 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

263rd District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1054112 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On October 5, 2017, relator Thelonious Paul Henry filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Jim Wallace, 

presiding judge of the 263rd District Court of Harris County, to rule on relator’s motion 

to reduce sentence. 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate 

remedy at law for obtaining the relief he seeks; and (2) what he seeks to compel involves 
2

a ministerial act rather than a discretionary act. In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494–95 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider 

and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and mandamus may issue to 

compel the trial court to act. In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). 

A relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; 

(2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within 

a reasonable time. Id. It is relator’s burden to provide a sufficient record to establish that 

he is entitled to relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). Relator has failed to do so. Relator has not provided this court with a filestamped copy of his motion requesting such relief from the trial court. See Henry, 525 

S.W.3d at 382. In the absence of a file-stamped copy of relator’s motion to reduce 

sentence, relator has not established that the motion is actually pending in the trial court. 

Moreover, even if relator had established that his motion is properly pending, he 

has not demonstrated that his motion was properly presented to the trial court. The trial 

court is not required to consider a motion that has not been called to its attention by proper 

means. Id. 

Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
exv10w25w1









Exhibit 10.25.1




SCHEDULE OF LETTER AGREEMENTS

SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS

TO FORM OF LETTER AGREEMENT FILED AS

EXHIBIT 10.25 TO THIS REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-1

PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTION 2 TO ITEM 601

OF REGULATION S-K





     In accordance with the Instructions to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Registrant has omitted
filing as exhibits to this Registration Statement on Form S-1 the Letter Agreements dated March 18,
2010 between Mirion Technologies, Inc. and each of the following Preferred Stockholders because
they are substantially identical in all material respects to the Form of Letter Agreement filed as
Exhibit 10.25.



 Holder

American Capital, Ltd.

American Capital Equity I, LLC

American Capital Equity II, LP

Thomas D. Logan

Michael S. Wilson
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6418 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 

the suspension of the limitation on the period for which certain borrowers 

are eligible for guaranteed assistance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2010 

Mr. BOSWELL (for himself, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. LOEBSACK, and Mr. LATHAM) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to extend the suspension of the limitation on 

the period for which certain borrowers are eligible for 

guaranteed assistance. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR 

4 WHICH BORROWERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR 

5 GUARANTEED ASSISTANCE. 

6 Section 5102 of the Farm Security and Rural Invest7 ment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1949 note; Public Law 107– 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6418 IH

1 171) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2012’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Brahe *vs.*Boker & Company.

[Jackson, C. J., not presiding, on account of providential cause.]

Since the constitution of 1877 and the act of 1879 to carry into effect the provisions of the constitution in relation to the uniformity of practice, and also making provision as to the times and places of holding justices’ courts, a justice of the peace in the city of Augusta cannot hold his court and render judgments in civil cases elsewhere than in his own district, notwithstanding the prior local laws of that city. 67 *Get.,*482.

*(a.)*This does not affect the jurisdiction of any one of those courts over parties residing anywhere in the limits of the city of Augusta. 71 *Ga.,*244.

Judgment reversed.

January 12, 1886.

Hall, Justice.

[Boker & Co. sued out an attachment against Brahe in the N. P. and *ex-officio*J. P. court of the 122d district of Richmond county. The defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction on the following grounds: (1.) That the court was not held within the geographical limits of the 122d district, but within the limits of the 120th district. (2.) That there is in the 120th district a regularly established court-ground, and that this court was not held at that point. (3.) Because the notary who held this court resided in the 122d district, but held court in the 120th district. (4.) Because the regular justice for the 122d district established the court-ground for that district at a certain place, and afterwards moved it to the office of the notary public and *ex-officio*justice of the peace, without any petition from the qualified voters of the district, and without giving thirty *882days’notice. (5.) Because so much of section 4590 of the Code of 1882 (act of 1877) as authorizes changes of location of the court-ground in town and city districts as often as necessary, was repealed by the constitution of 1877 and the act of July 21, 1879.

The justice struck these pleas, and after judgment, a *certiorari*was taken to the superior court. From the answer of the j ustice, it appeared that the regular justice for the 122d district moved his court from its former location (which was also within, the limits of the 120th district) to the office of the notary public and *ex-officio*justice of the peace, under an order granted by the ordinary. The judgment of the justice was sustained, and the defendant ex-, cepted.]
(function ($, Drupal) {
  Drupal.behaviors.usda = {
    attach: function (context, settings) {
      $('.paragraph--type-dropdown-menu-slider', context).one('usdaDropdownSlider').each(function (i) {
        // Add <label> around <h2> contents
        var dropdownId = 'dropdown_menu_slider_' + i;
        $('h2', this).wrapInner('<label for="' + dropdownId + '"/>');
        // Convert <ul> to <select> and wire up events
        var $options = $('li', this).wrapInner('<option/>').find('option');
        var maxOptionLength = Math.max.apply(this, $('li', this).map(function(){return $(this).text().length;}));
        var $heros = $(this).nextUntil(':not(.paragraph--type-basic-hero)');
        var width = Math.min(160 + 8 * maxOptionLength, $(window).width() * .9);
        $('<select id="' + dropdownId + '"/>').append($options).appendTo($('div', this)).css('width', width)
        .bind('change', function(e) {
          $heros.hide().eq(this.selectedIndex).show();
        });
        $heros.not(':eq(0)').hide();
        $('ul', this).remove();
      });

      // Add accessibility labels to generic landmarks that don't have them.
      var labelMap = {
        'section.paragraph--type-basic-hero': 'Promoted Content',
        'figure[role=group]': 'Figure'
      };
      $.each(labelMap, function(selector, label) {
        $(selector.replace(/,|$/, ':not([aria-label]):not([aria-labelledby])'))
          .attr('aria-label', function(i, attr) {return label + ' ' + (i+1);});
      });

      var paragraphsColumnHeader = $('.usda-paragraph-column > *:first-child');
      // set equal height
      paragraphsColumnHeader.matchHeight();
      // add span to first-child element
      paragraphsColumnHeader.each(function() {
        $(this).wrapInner("<span></span>");
      });

      // Allow clicking the logo to navigate to the home page.
      $('.usda-logo').on('click', function() {
        location.href = '/';
      });

      // Close active nav menu on background click.
      var $menu = $('nav#block-usda-main-menu');
      if($menu.length > 0) {
        $('html').click(function(e) {
          if(e.target && !($('body').hasClass('usa-mobile_nav-active')) && !($.contains($menu[0], e.target))) {
            $('button[aria-expanded="true"]', $menu).trigger('click');
          }
        });
      }
    }
  };
})(jQuery, Drupal);
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This  AMENDMENT  NUMBER 1  ("Amendment")  TO  EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT  is made and
entered into, in duplicate,  as of the date  hereinafter  set forth,  at Vienna,
Virginia,  by  and  between  the  undersigned  employee  ("Employee"),  and  GRC
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Company"). In consideration of the
mutual premises, promises,  covenants, and agreements herein contained, Employee
and Company hereby amend the Employment  Agreement between them dated as of July
1, 1995 ("Employment Agreement") as follows:

1.       Lifetime Medical and Dental Coverage for Employee and Spouse.

(a) Section 5 of the Employment  Agreement  provides certain insurance  benefits
for Employee and his spouse.  Employee and the Company hereby amend said Section
5 to provide that the medical and dental insurance  coverage provided shall also
include the so-called "Vision" coverage provided by the Company,  under the same
terms and  conditions  as the medical and dental  insurance  are  required to be
provided pursuant to the Employment Agreement.

(b) Section 5 also provides  that, to the fullest  extent  permitted by law, the
insurance  coverage  provided  to  Employee  and his spouse is  supplemental  to
Medicare or any other  government or other  arrangement  which might be in force
now or at a later date.  Employee and the Company hereby amend said Section 5 to
provide  that  the  insurance  provided  to  Employee  and  his  spouse,   while
supplemental to Medicare, is not capped by limitations corresponding to those of
Medicare. In addition, Employee agrees that Employee and his spouse shall enroll
in Medicare as soon as they are eligible.


Nothing else is hereby amended.


IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of June
30, 1998.

ATTEST:                                              GRC INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                                                     By:
----------------------------------                       -----------------------
Thomas E. McCabe                                         Joseph R. Wright, Jr.
Sr. Vice President, General Counsel & Sec'y              Chairman of the Board


WITNESS                                              EMPLOYEE


---------------------------------                    ---------------------------
                                                     James Roth

APPROVED AND RATIFIED BY THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
GRC INTERNATIONAL, INC.


---------------------------------
Leslie B. Disharoon
Chairman, Compensation Committee
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD MORRISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JOHN F. DIETZ; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17414

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01604-VC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2016**

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Richard Morrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from 

the seizure and sale of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo. Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-17414 

1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction); Rhoades v. 

Avon Products, Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal for failure to 

state a claim under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6)). We may affirm on any 

basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 

F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action against defendant Neustrom 

because Morrison failed to establish that the district court had specific personal 

jurisdiction over him. See Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122-23 (2014) (the 

relationship between the non-resident defendant and the forum must arise out of 

contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum); Schwarzenegger v. 

Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 807 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of 

complaint against non-resident defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction because 

he did not expressly aim any acts towards forum state). 

Dismissal of the action against defendants Dietz and Guidry was proper 

because Morrison failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Dietz and Guidry 

acted under color of state law. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 

940-41 (1982) (private misuse of a state statute is not actionable under § 1983).

We do not consider arguments that were not presented to the district court. 
 3 14-17414 

See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider 

arguments not raised below).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6307 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6307

 To amend title 17, United States Code, to enable a public broadcaster 
 to obtain statutory licenses for the transmission of sound recordings 
     online, unless a substantial portion of the sound recordings 
  transmitted, on a weekly basis, are by the same featured recording 
      artist or of the same musical work, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2010

 Ms. Baldwin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 17, United States Code, to enable a public broadcaster 
 to obtain statutory licenses for the transmission of sound recordings 
     online, unless a substantial portion of the sound recordings 
  transmitted, on a weekly basis, are by the same featured recording 
      artist or of the same musical work, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Public Radio Music Enhancement Act 
of 2010''.

SEC. 2. TRANSMISSIONS BY PUBLIC BROADCASTING ENTITIES.

    Section 114(j)(13) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of subsection (d), any 
transmission by a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 
118(f) of this title) on a particular channel shall be deemed to 
qualify as a sound recording performance complement, and therefore not 
to exceed the sound recording performance complement. The preceding 
sentence shall not apply if, on a weekly basis, a substantial portion 
of sound recordings transmitted on the channel are by the same featured 
recording artist or are of the same musical work.''
                                 <all>
```