alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6193]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that two proposed consent decrees in United States v. 
Rocky Ford Storage, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 94-N-1709, were 
lodged on February 15th and 24th, 1995 respectively with the United 
States District Court for the District of Colorado. The proposed 
consent decrees resolve claims in the complaint filed against Michael 
L. Skorka and Rocky Ford Storage, Inc. involving alleged violations of 
the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants regarding 
the removal of asbestos at the Rocky Ford Sugar Factory located in 
Rocky Ford, Colorado from 1989 through 1991. The consent decrees 
provide for payment of civil penalties to the United States for the 
violations alleged in the complaint. After a demonstration of a 
inability to pay a higher penalty by both Mr. Skorka and Rocky Ford 
Storage, Inc., Mr. Skorka will pay a civil penalty in the amount of 
$5,000 and Rocky Ford Storage, Inc. will pay a civil penalty in the 
amount of $22,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decrees. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. Rocky Ford Storage, Inc., et al., Doj Ref. #90-5-2-1-
1833.
    The proposed consent decrees may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, 12th Floor, Federal Office Building, 1961 Stout 
Street, Denver, Colorado 80294; the Region VIII Office of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, 999 18th Street, Suit 500, Denver, 
Colorado 80202; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 
4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 202-624-0892. Copies of the proposed 
consent decrees may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In 
requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a 
check in the amount of $5.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), 
for the Skorka consent decree or $3.00 (25 cents per page reproduction 
costs) for the Rocky Ford Storage, Inc. consent decree, payable to the 
Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-6193 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TONATIHU AGUILAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CHARLES L. RYAN; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 19-16412 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00336-DJH-MHB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Tonatihu Aguilar appeals pro se from the district 

court’s order denying his amended emergency motion for a preliminary injunction 

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16412 

discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a preliminary 

injunction because Aguilar failed to establish a relationship between the requested 

injunctive relief and defendant Henderson. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 

Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (absent a sufficient nexus 

between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth 

in the underlying complaint, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief 

requested). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
Amd 1 to the Aleris Corp 2010 Equity Incentive Plan Stock Option Agmt



 Exhibit 10.28.1 

AMENDMENT 1 TO THE 
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT 
  

			
	 TO:
	  	Roelof IJ. Baan
		
	 FROM:
	  	Aleris Corporation
		
	 Re:
	  	Amendment 1 to Option Award Agreement
		
	 Date
	  	April 28, 2011

 Effective as of June 1, 2010, you were granted an Option to purchase shares of common stock of Aleris Corporation,
fka Aleris Holding Company (the “Company”) and issued an Award Agreement, which you subsequently signed and accepted. The Option was granted under the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), a copy
of which was attached to the Award Agreement. We are amending your Award Agreement by issuing this Amendment 1 in order to reflect adjustments made by a special committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, pursuant to the terms of the Plan,
in light of the $9.60 cash dividend that the Company issued on February 28, 2011 to stockholders of record of the Company’s common stock as of February 17, 2011. Your Option remains subject in all respects to the terms and conditions
of the Plan and the Award Agreement, as amended by this Amendment 1. 
  

	 	A.	The second sentence of Section 1 is amended to read as follows: A portion of the Stock Option is granted at the exercise price per share of (a) $24.10 (the
“FMV Stock Option”), (b) $36.14 (the “Premium Stock Option”) and (c) $48.19 the “Super-Premium Stock Option”), in each case as set forth on Exhibit A hereto. 


 

	 	B.	Exhibit A to the Stock Option Agreement is amended to read as follows: 

  

									
	 	  	Number of Shares	 	  	Exercise Price	 
	 FMV Stock Option
	  	 	143,263	  	  	$	24.10	  
	 Premium Stock Option
	  	 	35,815	  	  	$	36.14	  
	 Super-Premium Stock Option
	  	 	35,815	  	  	$	48.19	  
		  	 	 	 	  			
	 TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES
	  	 	214,893	  	  			

  

	 	C.	For the avoidance of doubt, the adjusted number of shares underlying your FMV Stock Options, Premium Stock Options, and Super-Premium Stock Options, as applicable and
as set forth in the Exhibit, as amended above, will apply to those FMV Stock Options, Premium Stock Options, and Super-Premium Stock Options that are vested and unvested as of the date of this Amendment. 


 

	 	D.	This Amendment 1 is being made in accordance with the Adjustment of Shares and Amendment provisions of the Plan. 


 

	 	E.	With the exception of the modifications set forth in this Amendment 1, all other provisions of the Award Agreement shall remain unchanged, and in full force and effect.


  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Christopher R. Clegg
	Christopher R. Clegg
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

  
 8167885.1
Order entered October 9 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00347
- CR DANIEL ANDRE THOMAS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Crimi nal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 19
- 00118
- L



### O RDER
Before the Court is appellant’s October 7 , 2019 second motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before
Novemb er 8 , 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by November 8 , 2019, this appeal may be abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7011]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

James Richard Judd; Change in Bank Control Notice

Acquisition of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificant listed below has applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on notices are set forth in 
paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notice is available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notice has been accepted for 
processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices of 
the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in 
writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for the notice or to the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than 
April 5, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
    1. James Richard Judd, Stevens Point, Wisconsin; to acquire 45.6 
percent of the voting shares of Rudolph Bancshares, Inc., Rudolph, 
Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly acquire Farmers & Merchants Bank, 
Rudolph, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 16, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-7011 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3359

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 10.1



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

PRODUCTION
AGREEMENT



This First Amendment to the Production
Agreement (the Amendment) is made as of the 7thday of August, 2003, by and between Aurora Foods Inc., a
Delaware corporation (Buyer), and Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation, a Missouri corporation (Producer).



WITNESSETH



WHEREAS, Buyer and Producer entered into that certain Production Agreement dated as of June 4, 1998 (the Agreement);



WHEREAS, Producer first delivered Products, as defined in the Agreement, to
Buyer effective January 19, 1999; and



WHEREAS, both parties
desire to amend the Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual and
adequate consideration, Producer and Buyer agree as follows:



|1. | Paragraph 1 of the Agreement shall be amended so that the Original Term shall end January 19, 2005.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective duly authorized
representative to be effective as of the date first set forth above.



|AURORA FOODS INC. (Buyer) |  |                     |  | GILSTER-MARY LEE CORPORATION (Producer)
|--------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|                            |  |                     |  |                                          
|By:                         |  | /s/    Steve Smiley |  |                                          
|                            |  |                     |  |                                          
|Print Name:                 |  | Steve Smiley        |  |                                          
|Title:                      |  | VP Purchasing       |  |
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3136

Ogura Corporation: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3913

Helen of Troy:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Lorus Therapeutics Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I, Jim A.
Wright, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; 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/ Jim A. Wright
                               Name: Jim A. Wright
                         Title: Chief Executive Officer

November, -- 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 had been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10508 Conference Calendar

WAYNE MORRIS REEVES, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-1377-X

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wayne Morris Reeves, Jr., # 603172, appeals the dismissal of his action as frivolous. The district court did not err in construing it as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Reeves v. Director, TDCJ-ID , No. 3:95-CV-1377-No. 96-10508 - 2 - X (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 1996). Further, we hold that this appeal is frivolous and dismiss it accordingly. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Reeves has been warned by this court that he may be sanctioned for filing further frivolous suits. See Reeves v. Texas , No. 95-10549 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 1995). Accordingly, Reeves is BARRED from filing any pro se, in forma pauperis , civil appeal in this court without the prior written approval of an active judge of this court. Further, he is BARRED from filing
any pro se , in forma pauperis , initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Reeves, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John E. Bourgoin,certify, to the best of my knowledge, that based upon a review of the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months endedSeptember 30, 2003 (the “*Form 10-Q*”), the Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month periodcovered by the Form 10-Q.

 
| Date:  November 11, 2003 | By:    | /s/  JOHN E. BOURGOIN               |   |
|--------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |   | *John E. Bourgoin*                       |
|                     |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer,* |
|                     |   | *MIPS Technologies, Inc.*                |
|                     |   |                                     |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be retained byit and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6613]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research


Health Care Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel; Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2) announcement is made of the following 
special emphasis panel scheduled to meet during the month of April 
1995:

    Name: Health Care Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel
    Date and time: April 13, 1995, 9:30 a.m.
    Place: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Executive 
Office Center, 2101 East Jefferson Street, 6th Floor Conference 
Room, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Open session April 13, 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.
    Closed for remainder of meeting.
    Purpose: This panel is charged with conducting the initial 
review of grant applications on research related to care for persons 
with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other related 
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diseases.
    Agenda: The open session of the meeting on April 13 from 9:30 
a.m. to 10 a.m. will be devoted to a business meeting covering 
administrative matters. During the closed session, the committee 
will be reviewing grant applications dealing with (1) cost and 
financing of HIV/AIDS treatments and services; (2) organization and 
delivery of services; (3) characteristics and interactions of 
providers and patients; (4) comorbidity; and (5) special 
populations. In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.C.C., 552b(c)(6), the Administrator, 
AHCPR, has made a formal determination that this latter session will 
be closed because the discussions are likely to reveal personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the grant 
applications. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure.
    Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members or other relevant 
information should contact Gerald E. Calderone, Ph.D., Agency for 
Health Care Policy and Research, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Suite 
602, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone (301) 594-2462.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
Clifton R. Gaus,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-6613 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
****

**MOTOR MODEL: RF130**

# image1.jpeg

# image2.jpeg

# image3.jpeg

# image4.png

# image5.png