alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.29.1



 






Exhibit 10.29.1









December 20, 2005




David A. H. Lee, M.D., PhD.

100 Painters Drive

Chadds Ford, PA 19317



Dear David:




     Reference is hereby made to that certain amended and restated employment agreement, dated as
of September 1, 2002 (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”), between you and Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (the “Company”). Terms used but not defined in this letter shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Employment Agreement.



     Pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Employment Agreement, the Company hereby informs you that it
wishes to renew the Employment Agreement for an additional period of one year. If you are in
agreement, the Employment Period shall now cease on December 31, 2006, unless otherwise modified in
accordance with the terms of the Employment Agreement. In addition, Section 3.1(a) shall hereby be
amended to change the definition of Salary to $389,250.



     All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. If you are in agreement with this renewal, which shall be effective as of the date first
above written, please execute below.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,

 	 
	 	/s/ Peter A. Lankau
 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Peter A. Lankau

President & Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 


ACCEPTED AND AGREED THIS 20th DAY OF DECEMEBER 2005:



/s/ David A. H. Lee

David A. H. Lee, M.D., PhD.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Ron Zwanziger, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Alere Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                     |  |                                                              
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2012 |  | /s/ Ron Zwanziger                                            
|                     |  | Ron Zwanziger Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1758 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1758

To provide for the retroactive application of the mandatory increase in 
 insurance coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for 
 members of the Armed Forces deployed to combat theaters of operation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2019

Mrs. Hartzler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the retroactive application of the mandatory increase in 
 insurance coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for 
 members of the Armed Forces deployed to combat theaters of operation.

    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 ``Restoration for the Families of the 
Fallen Act''.

SEC. 2. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF INCREASE IN INSURANCE COVERAGE UNDER 
              SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS 
              OF THE ARMED FORCES.

    Subparagraph (D) of section 1967(a)(3) of title 38, United States 
Code, as added by section 625 of the John S. McCain National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232; 132 Stat. 
1801), shall apply with respect to deployments to a combat theater of 
operations occurring on or after November 1, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.26
  
        /s/ Marshall T. ChiaraluceMarshall T. ChiaraluceChairman, President & CEO




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 10.26
 CONNECTICUT WATER SERVICE, INC./THE CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANY
  Title:
    
    President and CEO, and DirectorReports to:
    
    Chairman of the BoardBase Salary:
    
    $294,100 (midpoint of salary range) per year, paid bi-monthly. To be reviewed and adjusted on a calendar year basisAnnual Incentive Award:
    
    15% of midpoint salary at threshold; 30% of midpoint at target; 45% of mid-point at maximum.Determined by Compensation Committee of the Board, based on Companys financial performance, corporate indicators and strategic initiatives.Long Term Incentives:
    
    4,507 shares of restricted CWS Common Stock on hire; 6-year vesting starting in 2006 Annual awards of restricted stock and/or stock options consistent with 2004
Performance Stock Plan, with value equal to annual incentive award.Deferred Compensation Agreement; defer up to 12% of salary with interest earned at Moodys AAA corporate bond yield average rate plus an additional 1
l/2 to 3%.Pension and Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan; 60% of last 5-year average salary base, including bonus; reduced by pension payments from
previous employer. Retirement can begin at age 55 with reduction factor. Five-year vesting.Vacation:
    
    4 weeksHolidays:
    
    13 paid holidays and 2 personal days per year401(k):
    
    Yes; 50% matching to statutory maximum




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 10.26
 Executive Compensation Term Sheet  Page 2
 Insurance:
    
    See standard Company documentation.Medical  managed care and point-of-service options; employee pays 25% of premiumDental  yes; with employee contributionEye Care- discounts on routine exams and prescription eye wearLife  2 times salary up to $350,000; premium fully paid by companyShort Term Disability  100% of salary for first 30 days; 60% to 180 daysLong Term Disability  60% of salary; $10,000/month max.Employee Counseling AssistanceFlexible Medical Spending AccountSeverance:
    
    For Cause  noneNot for Cause:1-year salary continuation; 1 year health and welfare benefit premium continuation; 1 year non-compete
 Change in Control§
    
    
    3-year salary and target bonus lump sum with tax gross up.§
    
    
    3-year health and welfare benefit premium continuation§
    
    
    accelerated vesting of options and/or restricted stock;§
    
    
    2-year non-compete
 Car:
    
    Yes; American-made, non-luxury vehicleCell phone:
    
    YesClub:
    
    The Hartford ClubIndustry Associations:
    
    Membership in national organizations and attendance at annual NAWC and Water Utility Executive conferencesRelocation Assistance:
    
    Relocation expenses and other appropriate expenses grossed up for taxes; temporary living benefits until August 2006; trip home every other week during school year; 3 house-hunting trips for spouseStart Date:
    
    February 1, 2006 up to March 1, 2006 (your choice)
Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 47 – Ladies of Landsat      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, we hear about a group working to expand diversity and inclusion in remote sensing.

View Media Details

View

Download and Transcript Access

View Media Details

**Summary**: Ladies of Landsat aims to help women and other underrepresented groups feel welcomed and supported in the field of remote sensing. The Twitter group has grown to 5,700 members and counting since Dr. Kate Fickas started it in 2018 during a Landsat Science Team meeting at EROS. In this episode of Eyes on Earth, we learn about the ambitions and actions of the group, why a sense of community is so important, and how Landsat is meaningful in this.

**Guest**: Dr. Kate Fickas, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Utah State University

**Host**: Jane Lawson

**Producer**: John Hult

**Release date**: April 5, 2021

**More on Ladies of Landsat**: 
                            - Ladies of Landsat on Twitter
                            - Ladies of Landsat Manuscript Monday on Github
                            - Earth Observation User Case Study: Ladies of Landsat

### Contacts
| ·       | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)  and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·       | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in the Report. |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Michael R. Sand                                                 | /s/Dean J. Brydon                              |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael R. Sand                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | Dean J. Brydon                                                                                                                                                                             |
| Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                    |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre EVERETT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-8033.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 29, 2013.

Andre Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Andre Everett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 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 Everett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral *160argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
153 So. 255

#### HOPKINS v. HARRISON.

8 Div. 530.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 1, 1934.

Bradshaw *&*Barnett, of Florence, for appellant.

Merwin T. Koonce and A. A. Williams, both of Florence, for appellee.

*181THOMAS, Justice.

The error assigned was the granting of ^plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the evidence — the verdict and judgment having been ■rendered for the defendant.

The brief of appellant contains this, statement: “When there is evidence on both sides, or some evidence to support the verdict, .it should not be set aside, because it may, mot correspond with the opinion of the court, as to the weight of the testimony, or because it is against the mere preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. Malone *&*Collins, 92 Ala. 630-635, 9 So. 738.” Such is the rule when'a motion for a new trial *is denied.*In this •case the motion for a new trial was granted, and the rule is “decisions granting n'ew trials will not be reversed, *unless the evidence ,plainly and palpably supports the verdict rendered.”*(Italics supplied.) Cobb v. Malone *&*Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 635, 636, 9 So. 738; Hall v. Clark, 225 Ala. 87, 142 So. 65; Birmingham Clay Products Co. v. White, 226 Ala. 89, 145 So. 668; Swinney v. State, 225 Ala. 273, 142 So. 562; Robinson v. Solomon Bros. Co., 225 Ala. 389, 143 So. 566; Ex parte State ex rel. Grace, 224 Ala. 273, 139 So. 288; Birmingham News Co. v. Lester, 222 Ala. 503, 133 So. 270; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Crosby, 194 Ala. 338, 70 So. 7; Merrill v. Brantley & Co., 133 Ala. 537-539, 31 So. 847.

The rule as recently stated in Parker v. Hayes Lumber Co., 221 Ala. 73, 74, 127 So. 504: “The evidence was in conflict, but the trial court saw and heard the witnesses, and on appeal some presumption must be in-' dulged in favor of it's action. As was said in Batson v. State ex rel. Davis, 216 Ala. 275, 113 So. 300, courts of record have inherent power, independent of the statute, to set aside and vacate their orders and judgments. within the term and for common-law causes,” will be presumed correct where evidence is conflicting. Reed v. Thompson, 225, Ala. 381, 143 So. 559.

That the evidence was in conflict is not denied by appellant, or disputed by the record.

The affidavit of newly discovered evidence attached to and made a part of the motion was material and probably would have ■changed the verdict of the jury. Fries v. Acme White Lead & Color Works, 201 Ala. 613, 79 So. 45. Upon matters of this sort much must be left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Stephens v. Pate, 221 Ala. 200, 128 So. 176; McLeod v. Shelly Manufacturing & Improvement Co., 108 Ala. 81, 19 So. 326.

We will not disturb the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for a new trial, and the judgment on the motion is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before The 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Treatment of Funds Held in Connection wit 

the Clearing of Over-the-counter Products 

by The New Y ork Mercantile Exchange 

ORDER 

On May 30, 2002, the Commission issued an Order ("May 30 Order") permitting the 

New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. ("NYMEX"), a registered derivatives clearing organization 

("DCO), and futures commission merchants ("FCMs") clearing through NYMEX to commingle 

customer funds used to margin, secure, or guarantee certain contracts executed in the over-thecounter ("OTC") markets and cleared by NYMEX with other funds held in segregated accounts 

maintained in accordance with Section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act") and 

Commission regulations, subject to specified terms and conditions. 

On February 4, 2003, the Commission issued an Order ("Feb. 4 Order") that deemed 

NYMEX floor brokers and floor traders to be "eligible contract participants" pursuant to section 

la(12)(C) of the Act for purposes of entering into certain OTC energy transactions to be 

submitted to NYMEX for clearing, subject to certain other terms and conditions. 

On February 6,2004, NYMEX filed a request that the Commission supplement the May 

30 Order and amend the Feb. 4 Order ("Request Letter"). Specifically, NYMEX requested that 

the May 30 Order be supplemented to permit seven option contracts executed in the OTC 

markets to be submitted for clearing via the process of an exchange of OTC options for NYMEX 

options ("EOO") listed only for clearing. 

Upon consideration, the Commission has determined to issue this Order. Subject to the 

following terms and conditions, NYMEX and FCMs clearing through NYMEX may commingle 

customer funds used to margin, secure, or guarantee option contracts executed in the OTC 

markets and cleared by NYMEX with other funds held in segregated accounts maintained in 

accordance with Section 4d of the Act and Commission regulations. The terms and conditions 

are as follows:
Gemini Titan, LLC

315 Park Avenue South, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10010
D If this is an AMENDMENT to an application, or to an existing designation, list all items that are amended and check

here. 

GENERAL INFORMATION 

I. Name under which the business of the designated contract market is or will be conducted, if different than

name specified above (include acronyms, if any):

2. If name of designated contract market is being amended, state previous designated contract market name:

3. Contact information, including mailing address if different than address specified above:

Number and Street 

City State Country Zip Code 

Main Phone number Fax 

Website URL E-mail Address

4. List of principal office(s) and address(es) where designated contract market activities are/will be conducted:

Office Address 

5. If Applicant is a successor to a previously designated contract market, please complete the following:

a. Date of succession

b. Full name and address of predecessor designee

Name 

Number and Street 

Gemini Trust Company, LLC has determined to establish a new entity, Gemini Titan, LLC,

to be the designated contract market applicant. Accordingly, the application and all exhibits

are being amended to reflect that Gemini Titan, LLC is the applicant.

Gemini Titan

Primary 315 Park Avenue South, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10010
Name of Applicant

Sydney B. Schaub, General Counsel

Gemini Titan, LLC

315 Park Avenue South, 18th Floor

New York New York 10010

Cameron Winklevoss, Member

Delaware

July 1, 2020

24th July 20

Gemini Titan, LLC
#### First United Methodist Church of Syracuse et al., Respondents, and Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse et al., Intervenors-Respondents, v City of Syracuse et al., Defen*989dants, and Downtown Committee of Syracuse, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We agree with Special Term’s denial of the application of the Downtown Committee to intervene in this action. The Downtown Committee is not a necessary party and it will not be bound by the judgment herein. The Committee seeks to duplicate the city’s representation in this lawsuit as evidenced by its proposed answer, which merely reasserts all the same positions advanced by the city. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4198

___________ Roger Eugene Gresham, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Conan Bruce, Investigator, Searcy, * Arkansas; Joseph Gahn, ATF Special * Appeal from the United States Agent, Little Rock, Arkansas,; * District Court for the Philip Hydron; Mike Bland, Individual * Eastern District of Arkansas. and Official Capacity; Carl Von * Winkle, Individual and Official * [UNPUBLISHED] Capacity; City of Searcy, Arkansas; * Searcy, Arkansas Police Department; * Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & * Firearms, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 6, 1998 Filed: July 9, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.TheHonorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Arkansas. Biven s v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 40 3 2 U.S. 388 (1971). -2- Roger Gresham appeals the district court & s adverse grant of summary judgment 1 in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens action against certain police officers of the City 2 of Searcy, Arkansas and others. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties & briefs, we conclude the district court & s judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*JOHN M.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 301 (AC 24174), is granted, limited to the following issue:

*917The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17398.

*John W. Watson,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Ronald G. Weller,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 23, 2005

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, precluding evidence of M’s sexual abuse and of M’s animus toward the defendant, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial?”
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 21-21 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 9 of 9