alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JONES v. DALTON, et al.

No. 423P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 11, 2005.

W. Gregory Merritt, New Bern, for Gloria Moley, et al.

Carl Thurman, III, Andrew R. Kirschner, Atlanta, GA, for Faith Jones.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of August 2005 by Defendants (Gloria Moley, C.R.N.A. and New Hanover Regional Medical Center) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of August 2005."
Exhibit 10(a)



 






Exhibit 10(a)




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

BRUSH ENGINEERED MATERIALS INC.

KEY EMPLOYEE SHARE OPTION PLAN




     Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., an Ohio corporation, hereby adopts this Amendment No. 2 to
the Brush Engineered Materials Inc. Key Employee Share Option Plan (the “Plan”), pursuant to the
transition rules set forth in IRS Notice 2005-1 with respect to Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.



I.




     All elective deferrals of compensation and non-elective deferrals relating to foregone
matching contributions made under the Plan in connection with the grant of Options on September 30,
2004, and on December 31, 2004, and all Options granted under the Plan with respect to those
deferrals are cancelled effective as of June 10, 2005. Each Participant who made any such a
deferral or had such a deferral made on his behalf shall receive payment of the amount of such
deferrals upon the cancellation, less applicable withholding taxes, and any such Participant shall
have no further rights under the Options granted with respect to such deferrals. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, a Participant who exercised any such Option shall not receive payment of the amount
of his deferral with respect to the cancellation of the exercised Option.



II.




     No Options shall be issued under the Plan after December 31, 2004.



     Executed at Cleveland, Ohio, this 10th day of June, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	BRUSH ENGINEERED MATERIALS INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By
	 	/s/ Daniel A. Skoch
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Senior Vice President Administration
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	And /s/ Michael C. Hasychak
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**MARKWESTHYDROCARBON, INC.**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 
| **NAME OF SUBSIDIARY**                         | ** ** | **STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF  INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION** |
|------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| MarkWest Michigan, Inc.                   |       | Colorado                                                          |
| MarkWest Resources, Inc.                  |       | Colorado                                                          |
| Matrex, LLC                                    |       | Michigan                                                          |
| MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.                 |       | Delaware                                                          |
| MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C.                     |       | Delaware                                                          |
| MarkWest Energy Operating Company, L.L.C.      |       | Delaware                                                          |
| West Shore Processing Company, LLC             |       | Michigan                                                          |
| Basin Pipeline LLC                             |       | Michigan                                                          |
| MarkWest Energy Appalachia, L.L.C.             |       | Delaware                                                          |
| MarkWest Texas GP, L.L.C.                      |       | Delaware                                                          |
| MW Texas Limited, L.L.C.                       |       | Delaware                                                          |
| MarkWest Michigan Pipeline Company, L.L.C.     |       | Michigan                                                          |
| MarkWest Western Oklahoma Gas Company,  L.L.C. |       | Oklahoma                                                          |
| MarkWest Power Tex L.P.                        |       | Texas                                                             |
| MarkWest Pinnacle L.P.                         |       | Texas                                                             |
| MarkWest Texas PNG Utility L.P.                |       | Texas                                                             |
| MarkWest Blackhawk L.P.                        |       | Texas                                                             |
| MarkWest Energy East Texas Gas CO L.P.         |       | Texas                                                             |
| MarkWest Pipeline CO L.P.                      |       | Texas                                                             |
| MarkWest New Mexico L.P.                       |       | New Mexico                                                        |

 

----
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4920 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain ion-exchange resins. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2007 

Mr. SAXTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain ionexchange resins. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ION-EXCHANGE RESINS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.39.30 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CHALUMEAU POWER SYSTEMS LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ALCATEL-LUCENT ENTERPRISE USA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1191

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:11-cv-01175-RGA, Judge 

Richard G. Andrews.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ROBERT GREENSPOON, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, 

Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by TRAVIS CAMPBELL. 

LANA S. SHIFERMAN, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, 

MA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by J.

ANTHONY DOWNS, ROBERT FREDERICKSON, III.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

August 12, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 4

TO

STOCK OPTION PLAN

OF

RBS GLOBAL, INC.


 


 


The Stock
Option Plan of RBS Global, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”),
adopted November 25, 2002 and subsequently amended on October 29,
2003 by Amendment No. 1, on December 15, 2003 by Amendment No. 2,
and on March 15, 2004 by Amendment No. 3 (the “Plan”), is hereby
amended as follows, effective July 27, 2005:


 


Section 2.1
of the Plan is hereby modified and amended to increase the aggregate number of
shares of common stock which may be issued pursuant to the exercise of options
granted pursuant to the Plan from 277,399 to 413,112 and shall read in its
entirety as follows:


 


“Section 2.1                                Shares
Subject to the Plan


 


The shares of
stock subject to Options shall be shares of Common Stock.  Subject to Section 7.1, the aggregate
number of such shares which may be issued upon exercise of Options is 413,112.”


 


The foregoing
Amendment No. 4 is hereby executed at the direction of the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors as of July 27, 2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Robert A. Hitt

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Robert A. Hitt

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  President
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7031 

CHARLES E. BLACKWELL, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

ON MOTION 

Before RADER, Circuit Judge. 

O R D E R

Charles E. Blackwell moves without opposition to stay proceedings in this appeal 

pending the court’s disposition of Harms v. Nicholson, 2007-7005. 

Blackwell asserts that both this case and Harms involve the issue of whether an 

appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from a denial of a 

motion to vacate is timely if filed within 120 days of the date of the decision denying the 

motion. 

We conclude that a stay is warranted and authorize the clerk of the court to grant 

similar unopposed motions. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 
(1) The motion to stay is granted. Blackwell is directed to inform this court 

within 14 days of the court’s disposition of Harms how he believes this appeal should 

proceed. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may also respond within that time. 

 (2) A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to 

hear Harms. 

 (3) The clerk of the court is authorized to grant similar unopposed motions in 

the future. 

 February 15, 2007 /s/ Randall R. Rader 

 Date Randall R. Rader 

 Circuit Judge 

cc: Kenneth M. Carpenter, Esq. 

Claudia Burke, Esq. 

s17 

2007-7031 2
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Christopher Lynn Vuicich, * From the 90th District

 Court of Stephens County,

 Trial Court No. F34011.

Vs. No. 11-13-00380-CR * April 23, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended April
24, 2005 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 12, 2005/s/ Michael C. BrantMichael C. BrantExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-20794

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSÉ ATADEO PENADO-RAMOS, also

known as José Atadeo Ramirez-Penado,

also known as José Atadeo Penado,

also known as José Attado Ramox,

also known as José Attado Ramos, also

known as José A. Ramos, also known as

José Ramos, also known as José Ataded

Penado, also known as José Aladeo

Penado-Ramos, also known as José Atadeo,

also known as José Avadeo Penado-Ramos,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-201-ALL

_________________________________________________________________

June 1, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

José Atadeo Penado-Ramos appeals his conviction for illegal

reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). He argues that:

(1) the indictment was insufficient for failing to allege an
2

element of intent; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the

jury’s verdict because the evidence indicated that he reasonably

believed that his reentry was lawful and because he established a

defense of entrapment by estoppel; and (3) specific intent is a

material element of an offense under § 1326. He concedes that his

specific intent argument is foreclosed by this court’s holding in

United States v. Trevino-Martinez, 86 F.3d 65, 69 (5th Cir. 1996).

This court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the

indictment de novo. See United States v. Cabrera-Teran, 168 F.3d

141, 143 (5th Cir. 1999). An indictment must allege each material

element of the offense in order to be sufficient. See id. Because

intent is not a material element of a violation of § 1326, PenadoRamos’s challenge fails. See id. at 143-44, 144 n.7.

This court also reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence de novo. See United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, 872

(5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1344 (1999). PenadoRamos’s argument that he reasonably believed that his reentry was

lawful does not affect the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

his guilty verdict because such a belief is not a defense to

criminal liability under § 1326. See United States v. Asibor, 109

F.3d 1023, 1036 (5th Cir. 1997); Trevino-Martinez, 86 F.3d at 68.

Furthermore, a defense of entrapment by estoppel is not available

to Penado-Ramos because there was no evidence, nor has he alleged,
3

that he was induced to rely on an affirmative misrepresentation of

the law by a government official. See Trevino-Martinez, 86 F.3d at

69.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

A F F I R M E D.
HomeOcean Facts

# What is remote sensing?

## Remote sensing is the science of obtaining information about objects or areas from a distance, typically from aircraft or satellites.

A Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) image created with data collected by NOAA's National Geodetic Survey.

Remote sensors collect data by detecting the energy  that is reflected from Earth. These sensors can be on satellites or mounted on  aircraft. 

Remote sensors can be either passive or active. Passive sensors respond to external stimuli. They record natural energy that is reflected or emitted from the Earth's surface. The most common source of radiation detected by passive sensors is reflected sunlight.

In contrast, active sensors use internal stimuli to collect  data about Earth. For example, a laser-beam remote sensing system projects a  laser onto the surface of Earth and measures the time that it takes for the  laser to reflect back to its sensor.

Remote sensing has a wide range of applications in many  different fields:

            - Coastal applications: Monitor shoreline changes,  track sediment transport, and map coastal features. Data can be used for coastal  mapping and erosion prevention.
            - Ocean applications: Monitor ocean circulation and  current systems, measure ocean temperature and wave heights, and track sea ice.  Data can be used to better understand the oceans and how to best manage ocean  resources.
            - Hazard assessment: Track hurricanes,  earthquakes, erosion, and flooding. Data can be used to assess the impacts of a  natural disaster and create preparedness strategies to be used before and after  a hazardous event.
            - Natural resource management: Monitor land use,  map wetlands, and chart wildlife habitats. Data can be used to minimize the damage  that urban growth has on the environment and help decide how to best protect natural  resources. 

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

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

          - Remote Sensing Division
          - National Geodetic Survey
          - Office for Coastal Management
          - Bringing  the Big Picture into Focus: The Future of Remote Sensing at NOAA

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**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 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated February 28, 2004, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedules in the Annual Report of
I-Sector Corporation on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2003 and
2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports
in the Registration Statements of I-Sector Corporation on Forms S-8 (File
No. 333-41001, effective November 25, 1997 and File No. 333-60320, effective
May 7, 2001).



/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Houston, Texas
April 12, 2005
### NUMBER 13

- 1 6

- 00 303

- CR


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

MICHELLE PUENTES , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36 th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas



## ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria Order Per Curiam

This matter is before the Court because the clerk’s record has not been filed. On
July 5, 2016 , the Clerk of the Court notif ied appellant’s counsel he had failed to make
arrangements for payment of the clerk’s record and that unless the request for the clerk’s
record and proof of the request wa s provided to this Court within ten days from the date2

of receipt of th e letter, th e matter would be referred to the Court for appropriate action.
Counsel has failed to file a response and the clerk’s record has not been filed.
This situation requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further delay and
to preserve the parties ’ rights. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(a)(2). Accordingly, this appeal

is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court.
Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given
and conduct a hearing to determine: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this
appeal; (2) whether appellant is indigent; (3) whether appellant is entitled to a free
appellate record due to his indigency; and (4) what steps are necessary to ensure the
prompt preparation of a complete clerk ’ s record, and shall enter any orders required to
avoid further delay and to preserve the parties ’ rights.

The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and recommendations, together
with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a
supplemental clerk's record

. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental
reporter's record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record
and supplemental reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within
thirty days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 2 nd day of August , 201 6

.
STATE v. RITTER.

No. COA05-888.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Montgomery (01CRS50642)

Case without published opinion. No error.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5417 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Permethrin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2008 

Mr. ETHERIDGE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Permethrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMETHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.80 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Permethrin) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and in7 serting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

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 annual report of SeaChange International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin M. Bisson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                   
|/s/    KEVIN M. BISSON                                                                                             
|Kevin M. Bisson Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration, Treasurer and Secretary

April 14, 2008

This certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission with this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.