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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10(bb)

                  FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED SHARE AGREEMENT

         This amendment is made effective March 26, 2002, between Metatec
International, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the "Company"), and Christopher A.
Munro ("Mr. Munro").

                             Background Information

         The Company and Mr. Munro (the "Parties") are parties to a Restricted
Share Agreement dated January 2, 2001 (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which the
Company awarded and issued to Mr. Munro 40,000 common shares, without par value,
of the Company (the "Shares"), subject to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement. The Parties desire to modify the forfeiture provisions set forth in
the Agreement and are entering into this amendment for that purpose.

                             Statement of Agreement

         The Parties hereby acknowledge the accuracy of the foregoing Background
Information and agree as follows:

         Section 1. Definitions. Any capitalized terms used but not otherwise
defined in this amendment shall have the respective meanings given those terms
in the Agreement.

         Section 2. Vesting. If a Change In Control (as defined below) occurs
prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date, then, as of the date of
such Change In Control, the forfeiture restrictions contained in Section 2 of
the Agreement shall lapse automatically with respect to all Shares not forfeited
to the Company under such section prior to such Change In Control. For purposes
of this amendment, the term "Change In Control" shall mean the occurrence of any
of the events described in Section 8 of the Company's 1990 Stock Option Plan, as
amended (the "Plan"), the occurrence of which would cause or permit stock
options granted under the Plan that are not yet otherwise fully exercisable to
become fully exercisable.

         Section 3. Interpretation. This is an amendment to and a part of the
Agreement. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the
Agreement and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control.
Except as modified by this amendment, the Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect without change.

METATEC INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By   /s/ Julie A. Pollner                       /s/ Christopher A. Munro
  -------------------------------               ------------------------------
   Julia A. Pollner, Senior                     CHRISTOPHER A. MUNRO
   Vice President, Finance
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Geological Survey

# AGENCY:

Geological Survey, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) Negotiations. 

# SUMMARY:

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is contemplating entering into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the Exploration Company of Delaware, Inc., to obtain and characterize various coalbeds from the Maverick Basin, in south Texas.

# INQUIRIES:

If any other parties are interested in similar activities with the USGS, please contact Charles E. Barker, USGS Denver Federal Center, Sixth Ave. and Kipling St., Building 20, MS 977, Denver, CO 80225, (303) 236-5797.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice is submitted to meet the USGS requirements stipulated in Survey Manual Chapter 500.20.

P. Patrick Leahy,

Associate Director for Geology.

[FR Doc. 01-10816 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-47-M
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Six Brothers Concrete Pumping, LLC and Joseph Lowry v. Martin 

Tomczak

Appellate case number: 01-21-00161-CV

Trial court case number: 2021-07817

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

Appellants Six Brothers Concrete Pumping, LLC and Joseph Lowry filed a motion for 

rehearing from our August 2, 2022 opinion. The Court requests a response to the motion. 

Appellee, Martin Tomczak, is ordered to file a response to the motion for rehearing, which is 

due on November 1, 2022.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ______/s/ Peter Kelly______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __October 18, 2022____
(function() {

  Drupal.behaviors.evo_search_toggle = {
    attach: function(context) {
        
        const searchToggleValue = drupalSettings.evo_search_toggle.EvoSearchToggleJS.search_toggle;
        const searchFormAlignment = drupalSettings.evo_search_toggle.EvoSearchToggleJS.alignment;

        // console.log(drupalSettings);

        if (searchToggleValue) {
            // SEARCH ICON TOGGLE FEATURE
            const divElement = document.querySelector('div[data-drupal-selector*="views-exposed-form-evo-search-api"].views-exposed-form');
            const formElement = divElement ? divElement.querySelector('form') : null;

            if (searchToggleValue) {
            document.body.classList.add('search-toggle-enabled');
            } else {
            document.body.classList.remove('search-toggle-enabled');
            }

            if (divElement && formElement) {
            // Create the search icon button and set its attributes
            const searchToggle = document.createElement('button');
            searchToggle.setAttribute('tabindex', '0');
            searchToggle.setAttribute('aria-label', 'Toggle search form visibility');
            // Create an <i> element for the Font Awesome icon and set its class
            const searchIcon = document.createElement('i');
            searchIcon.className = 'fas fa-search';
            // Add the <i> element inside the button
            searchToggle.appendChild(searchIcon);
            // Insert the search icon button before the form element
            divElement.insertBefore(searchToggle, formElement);
            // Hide the form element initially
            formElement.style.display = 'none';
            // Function to toggle the form's visibility
            function toggleSearchForm() {
                // Toggle the display of the form element
                formElement.style.display = formElement.style.display === 'none' ? 'flex' : 'none';
                formElement.classList.toggle('form-element-visible');
                formElement.parentElement.classList.toggle('form-child-visible');
                
                // Add the appropriate alignment class to the form element's parent
                formElement.parentElement.classList.remove('form-alignment-left', 'form-alignment-center', 'form-alignment-right');
                formElement.parentElement.classList.add('form-alignment-' + searchFormAlignment);
            }            
            // Event listeners for click and keydown events
            searchToggle.addEventListener('click', toggleSearchForm);
            searchToggle.addEventListener('keydown', (event) => {
                if (event.key === 'Enter' || event.key === ' ') {
                    event.preventDefault();
                    toggleSearchForm();
                }
            });
          }
        }
      }
   };
})(jQuery, Drupal);
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00422-CV

NOSAYABA FRANCIS 

EVBUOMWAN

APPELLANT

V.

ELVIRA CASTILLO APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On October 24, 2011, and November 15, 2011, we notified appellant, in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 8, 2011

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing 

fees in courts of appeals).
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 609 

To permit California and other States to effectively control greenhouse gas 

emissions from motor vehicles, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2009 

Mr. SHERMAN (for himself and Mr. WELCH) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To permit California and other States to effectively control 

greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, 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 ‘‘Right to Clean Vehicles 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF PREEMPTION FOR CALIFORNIA GREEN7 HOUSE GAS EMISSION REGULATION FOR VE8 HICLES. 

9 Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) 

10 is amended by adding at the end the following: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 609 IH

1 ‘‘(f) WAIVER.—Notwithstanding subsection (b) or 

2 any other provision of law, the application for a waiver 

3 of preemption dated December 21, 2005, submitted to the 

4 Administrator pursuant to subsection (b) by the State of 

5 California for the regulation of that State to control green6 house gas emissions from motor vehicles shall be consid7 ered to be approved.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Morgan Stanley Tangible Asset Fund L.P. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      23,944,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,417<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,175,620<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,175,620<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,039,461<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               421,349
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                618,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            618,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   618,112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $70,417.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $160,368.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $386,146, accrued
brokerage fees of $67,294, accrued management fee of $46,092 and
service fee payable of $18,437.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $34,855,
net change in unrealized of $796,011 and interest income of $208,595.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick Lingenau, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.), rendered July 16, 1985, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of from 8V6 to 25 years’ and from *IV2*to 4 Vi years’ imprisonment, respectively.

*177Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the sentences are to run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The 14-year-old complainant admitted that she was unable to accurately estimate a person’s height and that she was mistaken in some of the details of her initial description of her assailant which did not correspond to the defendant’s appearance. However, she located the scene of the crime, the defendant’s apartment house, prior to recognizing the defendant on the street and she testified that she was certain he was the assailant because she remembered his face and his acne-covered back. It was the jury’s proper function to weigh the complainant’s credibility and resolve the conflicts in the evidence *(see, People v Bauer,*113 AD2d 543, *lv denied*67 NY2d 648, 880). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

In the exercise of our discretion, we modify the judgment so as to provide that the sentences are to run concurrently *(see generally, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-48022, No. 33-52700, No. 33-80172, No. 33-71080, No. 33-80170, No. 333-03125,
No. 333-31027, and No. 333-10442 of Metatec International, Inc. (formerly
Metatec Corporation) on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-03123 on
Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2000 (March 22, 2000 as to the waiver
and amendment of certain covenants in Note 5 to the consolidated financial
statements), included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Metatec
International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
March 28, 2000
Columbus, Ohio



03/21/00
**Exhibit 99.2**

** **

## **CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted),Laura B. DePole, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, hereby certifiesthat, to the best of her knowledge:

 

1.               This report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

2.               The information contained in this reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the registrant.

 

 
| Dated:  May 12, 2003 |   | /s/ Laura B.  DePole                     |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Laura B. DePole, Chief Financial Officer |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,965
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          193,102
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,635
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,261)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   216,476
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,575
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,450)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,897)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,897)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)


</TABLE>
#### Devaughn Jherelle HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7424.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2011.

Decided: May 20, 2011.

Howard Highland, Washington & Lee Immigration & Citizenship Program, Lexington, Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Devaughn Jherelle Hall seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s * order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive *355procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 The parties consented to the exercise of the district court's jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D IST RICT

TERRY CUSICK

, Appellant,

v.

SEACOAST NATIONAL BANK and

RENEE CAREY
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 22

- 1782

[ April 6, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nine teenth Judicial Circuit,

Martin County ; Elizabeth A

. Metzger , Judge; L.T. Case No.

21000076CPAXMX

.

Jason M. Wandner of Jason M. Wandner, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Owen Schultz and Kenneth A. Norman of McCarthy, Summers, Wood, Norman, Melby & Schultz, P.A., Stuart, for appellee Seacoast National

Bank.

Scott Konopka and Donna L. Eng of Mrachek, Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A., Stuart, for appellee Renee Carey.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., D AMOORGIAN and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(85 South. 921)

#### GADSDEN LAND & DEVELOPMENT CO. v. KYLE et al.

(7 Div. 44.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1920.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowa County; W. J. Martin, Judge.

A. E. Goodhue, of Gadsden, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6037 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for an exception to 

the prohibition against mailing tobacco products for products mailed 

to members of the Armed Forces serving in a combat zone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MILLER of 

Florida, and Mr. ROONEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for an 

exception to the prohibition against mailing tobacco products for products mailed to members of the Armed 

Forces serving in a combat zone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TOBACCO PRODUCTS MAILED TO MEMBERS OF 

4 ARMED FORCES SERVING IN COMBAT ZONE. 

5 Section 1716E(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following new para7 graph: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6037 IH

1 ‘‘(7) MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES SERVING IN

2 COMBAT ZONE.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall 

4 not apply to tobacco products mailed to a mem5 ber of the Armed Forces who is serving in a 

6 combat zone. 

7 ‘‘(B) COMBAT ZONE DEFINED.—In this 

8 paragraph, the term ‘combat zone’ means an 

9 area designated by the President as a combat 

10 zone for purposes of section 112 of the Internal 

11 Revenue Code of 1986.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS