alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.45

LOGO

August 28, 2009

Steve Singer

Hansen Medical, Inc.

380 North Bernardo Avenue

Mountain View, CA 94043



|Re: | Extension of Purchase Agreement (the Agreement)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------

Agreement No. SS02AUG2007

Dated: September 21, 2007

Dear Steve:

As you may know, the Purchase
Agreement, which is the basis of our manufacturing relationship, is set to expire on September 21, 2009, per section 1 of the Agreement. The Agreement permits the parties to extend the relationship by mutual agreement. Therefore, as our
manufacturing relationship is set to continue, we need to extend the terms of this Agreement, which is the purpose of this letter.

As such,
the parties to the Agreement agree to extend the terms of the Agreement for an additional twenty-four (24) months or until September 21, 2011. If Hansen agrees to this extension, please have the appropriate person sign both original
letters and return one to us.

We look forward to continuing a strong relationship.

/s/ Todd Kelsey

Todd Kelsey

Sr Vice President Customer Services

Plexus Corp.



I, Frank Schembri, Jr., on behalf of Hansen Medical, Inc.,
represent that I have authority to bind the company and so agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this letter.



|                           |  |                     
|-------------------------- |  | --------------------
|                          
|                          
|/s/ Frank Schembri, Jr.   
|                           |  | Signature           
|                          
|Frank Schembri, Jr. VP Mfg
|                           |  | Print Name and Title
|                          
|9/17/09                   
|                           |  | Date                

55 Jewelers Park Drive, P. O. Box 156, Neenah, WI 54957-0156

(920) 722-3451
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10143

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. JOHN ERNEST BOUNDY,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

versus

BERNARD JOSEPH DOLENZ; DOLENZ CLINIC,

Defendant-Counter Claimants-Appellants.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-301-G

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

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bernard Dolenz, federal prisoner # 31480-077, appeals

following the district court’s grant of John Boundy’s motion to

dismiss without prejudice his qui tam suit filed on behalf of the

United States. Boundy’s motion to file a response to Dolenz’s

reply brief is DENIED. 

Dolenz argues that Boundy filed his motion to voluntarily

dismiss his complaint because he had received an adverse ruling on
No. 03-10143

-2-

his motion for a summary judgment in his favor and was attempting

to avoid an unfavorable result in the proceedings. Dolenz contends

that Boundy would have not succeeded in his qui tam action because

he was not an original source under the False Claim Act and did not

have standing to bring the action. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(3)(4).

We review a FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2) dismissal without prejudice

for abuse of discretion. A motion for voluntary dismissal should

be granted “unless the nonmoving party will suffer some plain legal

prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.”

Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002).

Dolenz has not shown that he will suffer plain legal prejudice from

the dismissal without prejudice. See id. at 317-19; Manshack v.

Southwestern Elec. Power Co., 915 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1990).

His arguments in his appellate brief challenging Boundy’s standing

as an original source are without merit. See U.S. ex rel. Laird v.

Lockheed Martin Engineering and Science Services Co., 336 F.3d 346,

352-55 (5th Cir. 2003). We do not consider arguments raised for

the first time in a reply brief. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d

158, 179 (5th Cir. 2000). Also, Dolenz may re-urge his challenge

to Boundy’s standing as an original source if Boundy refiles his

qui tam action. We do not address his other issues on appeal given

the current status of the case. 

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Kevin McMILLIAN.

No. 205P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

H. Gerald Beaver, Fayetteville, for Charles Kevin McMillian.

Jay L. Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of April 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review (or alternatively, petition for writ of certiorari) of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
# L_2012198EN.01000601.xml

| 25.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 198/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 198/6

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 679/2012

of 24 July 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Squacquerone di Romagna (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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 the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name ‧Squacquerone di Romagna‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy's application to register the name ‧Squacquerone di Romagna‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under 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 under 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 twentieth day following that of 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, 24 July 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ C 304, 15.10.2011, p. 19.

2

---

ANNEX

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

Class 1.3.   Cheeses

ITALY

Squacquerone di Romagna (PDO)

---
HomeOcean Facts

# What is sonar?

## Sonar uses sound waves to 'see' in the water.

A three-minute video about multibeam and side scan sonar, including a visualization that shows how sonar data is used to make products like nautical charts.  | **Download**: Soundscapes (75 MB) 

Sonar, short for *Sound Navigation and Ranging*, is helpful for exploring and mapping the ocean because  sound  waves travel farther in the water than do  radar  and light waves.  NOAA scientists primarily use sonar to develop nautical charts,  locate underwater hazards to navigation,   search for and map objects on the seafloor such as shipwrecks, and  map the seafloor itself.  There are two   types of sonar—active and passive.

## Active Sonar

**Active** sonar transducers emit an acoustic signal or pulse of sound into  the water. If an object is in the path of the sound pulse, the sound  bounces off the object and returns an “echo” to the sonar transducer.  If the transducer is equipped with the ability to receive signals, it  measures the strength of the signal. By determining the time between  the emission of the sound pulse and its reception, the transducer can  determine the range and orientation of the object.

## Passive Sonar

**Passive** sonar systems are used primarily to detect noise from marine  objects (such as submarines or ships) and marine animals like whales.  Unlike active sonar, passive sonar does not emit its own signal, which  is an advantage for military vessels that do not want to be found or  for scientific missions that concentrate on quietly “listening” to the ocean.  Rather, it only detects sound waves coming towards it. Passive  sonar cannot measure the range of an object unless it is used in  conjunction with other passive listening devices. Multiple passive  sonar devices may allow for triangulation of a sound source.

###### **Search** Ocean Facts

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - Multibeam Sonar, Side Scan Sonar
          - Surveys and Wrecks,  Office of Coast Survey 
          -  Understanding Ocean Acoustics ,  NOAA Ocean Explorer
          - Sound in the Sea Gallery ,  NOAA Ocean Explorer
          - Acoustic Monitoring ,  NOAA Vents Program

**Last updated:**   01/20/23**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5212 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Gas Flow Control Valve 100 milliliters 

minimum. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2008 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Gas Flow Control Valve 

100 milliliters minimum. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GAS FLOW CONTROL VALVE 100 MILLILITERS 

4 MINIMUM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Gas Flow Control Valve 100 

milliliters minimum (provided 

for in subheading 

8481.80.90) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

HR 5212 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
No. 85-1453.

#### Colorado Flying Academy, Inc., et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CABARRUS COUNTY v. SYSTEL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC.

No. 408P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, Cynthia L. Van Horne, Charlotte, for Systel Business Equipment Co.

Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., Concord, Christy E. Wilhelm, for Cabarrus County.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of August 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of InfoSonics Corporation (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2010, each of the undersigned in his capacity as an officer of the Company hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 12,
2010



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph Ram                                   
|Joseph Ram, President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 12, 2010



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Vernon A. LoForti                     
|Vernon A. LoForti, Chief Financial Officer
Extension of Employment Agreement dated May 3, 2005, Alan Vituli


 Exhibit 10.31 
  
 3rd EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Extension of Employment Agreement (this “Agreement”) effective as of May 3, 2005 by and between CARROLS
CORPORATION (“Employer”), a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware having an address at 968 James Street, Syracuse, New York 13203 and ALAN VITULI whose principal residence is 789 Crandon Blvd., Suite 120, Key Biscayne, Florida
33149 (“Employee”). 
  

	 	1.	Employer and Employee previously entered into a certain employment agreement dated January 1, 1995, as amended April 3, 1996, as further amended and restated on March 27, 1997,
as further amended and extended on April 1, 2002 and as further extended on November 11, 2004 (the “Employment Agreement”), which agreement is due to expire on December 31, 2005. 

  

	 	2.	Employer and Employee have agreed to extend the term of the Employment Agreement to December 31, 2006. 

  

	 	3.	The Carrols Corporation Compensation Committee has approved the extension of the Employment Agreement as herein provided. 

  

	 	4.	By this Agreement, the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31, 2006, upon all terms and conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement. 

  
 IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and have caused this
Extension of Employment Agreement to be executed as of May 3, 2005. 
  

			
	CARROLS CORPORATION
	
	 /s/ Joseph A. Zirkman

	 Name:
	 	 Joseph A. Zirkman

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President

	
	 /s/ Alan Vituli

	 Alan Vituli
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5342 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5342

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-methyl-4-
                       chlorophenoxyacetic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

 Mrs. Biggert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-methyl-4-
                       chlorophenoxyacetic acid.

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

SECTION 1. 2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.60 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2-methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid) is amended by striking the date in the 
effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
LANEY v. PENN-AMERICA INS. CO.

No. COA04-1690

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CVS3102).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Brown, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 694]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J), rendered August 20, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, criminal trespass in the third degree, petit larceny, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by an impartial jury because of a juror’s alleged introduction of extraneous information into the jury’s deliberations is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant fully acquiesced in the court’s remedial action of individually questioning each member of the jury panel about his or her ability to remain impartial by failing to interpose a further objection, renew his mistrial motion, or otherwise again raise the present contention *1036that he was deprived of a fair trial *(see People v Heide,*84 NY2d 943 [1994]; *cf. People v Albert,*85 NY2d 851 [1995]). In any event, after conducting a probing and thorough examination of each juror regarding the comments, the court determined that none of the jurors had been prejudiced and that the ability of the jurors to be fair and impartial had not been compromised by the conversations they either had or heard *(see People v Simon,*224 AD2d 458 [1996]; *People v Pollard,*150 AD2d 397 [1989]; *People v Castillo,*144 AD2d 376 [1988]). Accordingly, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial *(see People v Simon, supra; People v Castillo, supra; People v Pollard, supra*at 398).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

SUMMARY OF DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION 
 Effective July 8,
2019, compensation paid to non-employee directors of A. O. Smith Corporation is as follows: Directors will receive an annual cash retainer of $75,000, paid quarterly and the lead director will receive an
annual cash retainer of $100,000, paid quarterly. Each director receives Common Stock with a market value of $130,000 on the date of the award. The committee retainers to each director remain unchanged. Each Investment Policy Committee and Personnel
and Compensation Committee member will receive an annual retainer of $13,000, paid quarterly. Each Nominating and Governance Committee member will receive an annual retainer of $10,500, paid quarterly. The Chairperson of these Committees receives an
additional annual retainer of $12,000, paid quarterly. Each Audit Committee member receives an annual retainer of $23,500, paid quarterly with the Chairperson receiving an additional annual retainer of $17,500, paid quarterly.
Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-69340) pertaining to the 2000 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Plan and
Compensatory Plan with Oscar Otero of Puradyn Filter Technologies, Incorporated
and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-47312) pertaining to the1999
Stock Option Plan of Puradyn Filter Technologies, Incorporated, as amended, of
our report dated March 19, 2002 (except for the third paragraph of Note 2 and
the last paragraph of Note 23, as to which the date is March 28, 2002), with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Puradyn Filter Technologies,
Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended
December 31, 2001.


                                                             Ernst & Young LLP

West Palm Beach, Florida
March 28, 2002
STATE v. Chaumon Marte WEBB.

No. 450P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 24, 2005.

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for Webb.

Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of August 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of August 2005."
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HUSSMANN AIRCRAFT DIVISION OF HUSSMANN REFRIGERATOR COMPANY.

No. 14862.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

July 6, 1953.

David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., and A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Order of National Labor Relations Board enforced, on petition for enforcement, and stipulation filed with Board.