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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3162 

To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

that constitutes minimum essential coverage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 24, 2010 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. BENNET, 

Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. BURRIS, Mr. 

BYRD, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. 

CONRAD, Mr. DODD, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. 

FEINSTEIN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mrs. HAGAN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KAUFMAN, Mr. KERRY, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mr. KOHL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, 

Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. 

MENENDEZ, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NELSON

of Florida, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. REED, Mr. REID, 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. 

SPECTER, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. WARNER, Mr. WEBB, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and 

Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage. 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 3162 IS

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDED 

2 BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

3 THAT CONSTITUTES MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 

4 COVERAGE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (v) of section 

6 5000A(f)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 

7 added by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and 

8 Affordable Care Act, is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(v) chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, 

10 United States Code, or otherwise under the 

11 laws administered by the Secretary of Vet12 erans Affairs, of an individual entitled to 

13 coverage under such chapter or laws for 

14 essential health benefits (as defined by the 

15 Secretary for purposes of section 1302(b) 

16 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

17 Care Act) insofar as such benefits are 

18 available under such chapter or laws; or’’. 

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

20 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in section 

21 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

22 and shall be executed immediately after the amendments 

23 made by such section 1501(b). 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
10.1


 


 


 


November 23, 2007


 


Raouf Halim


Newport Beach


 


Re:   Special
Bonus


 


Dear Raouf:


 


Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)
is pleased to offer to pay you a special bonus of $250,000 (the “Special Bonus”),
less applicable state and federal tax withholding, in exchange for 12 months of
continued service to the Company.  You
agree that, if you voluntarily leave the Company or are terminated for cause on
or prior to the first anniversary of the date of this letter, you agree to
repay to the Company 100% of the gross amount of the Special Bonus within 30
days of such termination of employment. 
Accordingly, you agree that the Special Bonus shall not be deemed to be
earned until such time as you have been continuously employed by the Company
for 12 months as explained above.


 


For purposes of this Agreement, the term “cause”
shall mean: (i) a material breach of your employment obligations with the
Company; (ii) your willful failure to follow the reasonable instructions of the
Company or its board of directors; (iii) willful misconduct that is in bad
faith and materially injurious to the Company, monetarily or otherwise,
including but not limited to misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, or
embezzlement; (iv) your conviction for fraud or any other felony; or (v) if you
exhibit in regard to your employment unfitness or unavailability for service,
unsatisfactory performance, misconduct, dishonest, habitual neglect, or
incompetence.


 


We appreciate your continuing contributions
to the Company’s success.


 


Sincerely,


 


Mindspeed Technologies, Inc.


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Tom Morton

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Tom Morton

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Sr. Vice President, Human
  Resources

  



 


 


Agreed and Accepted this 23rd day of
November, 2007.


 


	
  /s/ Raouf Y. Halim
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4

                                     FORM OF
                            EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS

PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: $2,965,127                               DATE: AUGUST 31, 2002

This agreement has been delivered as evidence of indebtedness of Sercap
Holdings, LLC to Guy W. Millner, for accrued and unpaid interest in the amount
of $2,965,127 owed by the Borrower to Millner under a promissory note dated
January 23, 1998, and a promissory note dated January 1, 1999. This Evidence of
Indebtedness is not intended to constitute payment of such accrued and unpaid
interest.

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby promise to pay to the order of Guy W.
Millner

The sum of $ 2,965,127, together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per
annum on the unpaid balance. Said sum shall be paid in the following manner:

      Interest shall be paid quarterly. Principal payments will begin December
      2004 and continue annually until paid in full. Principal payment shall be
      $ 500,000 or 25% of Free Cash Flow, which ever is greater. Free Cash Flow
      is defined as net income after tax plus non-cash items minus working
      capital.

All payments shall be first applied to interest and the balance to principal.
This note may be prepaid, at any time, in whole or in part without penalty. All
parties liable for the payment of this Note agree to pay the holder reasonable
attorney's fees for services of counsel employed to collect this Note.

The Borrower hereby (a) waives demand, presentment of payment, notice of
nonpayment, protest, notice of protest and all other notice, filing of suit, and
diligence in collecting this note; (b) agrees that the Holder shall not be
required first to institute any suit, or to exhaust its remedies against the
Borrower or any other person or party to become liable hereunder, or against any
collateral in order to enforce payment of this Note; (c) consents to any
extension, rearrangement, renewal or postponement of time of payment of this
Note and to any other indulgence with respect hereto without notice, consent or
consideration; and (d) agrees that notwithstanding the occurrence of any of the
foregoing, except with the express written release by the Holder, the Borrower
shall be and remain directly and primarily liable for all sums due under this
Note.

This Note shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the
State of Georgia.

SERCAP HOLDINGS, LLC

By: /s/ Lawrence Stumbaugh
    ------------------------
    Name: Lawrence Stumbaugh
    Title: CEO

                                       37
<PAGE>1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
                  CALCULATIONS OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT
                 SHARE AND EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE ASSUMING FULL DILUTION
                          (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

<S>                           <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>
                                                    Year Ended September 30,
                                       1995                   1994                 1993
                              Common and             Common and           Common and
                                common     Fully       common    Fully      common    Fully
                              equivalent  diluted    equivalent diluted   equivalent diluted
Net income (loss) available
to common stockholders. . . . $(240,484)  $(240,484) $  12,797  $  12,797 $  16,433  $  16,433
                              =========   =========  =========  ========= =========  =========

Weighted average number of
shares outstanding  . . . . .    46,062      46,062     43,570     43,570    40,199     40,199 Adjustments:

Assumed issuances under
acquisition contingencies            --          --        954        954        --         --

Assumed issuances under stock
option and stock purchase
plans . . . . . . . . . . . .        --          --      1,151      1,231     1,389      1,485

Assumed exercise of warrants         --          --      1,661      1,780     1,162      1,280
                                 46,062      46,062     47,336     47,535    42,750     42,964
                              =========   =========  =========  ========= =========  =========

Earnings (loss) per
 common share . . . . . . . . $   (5.22)  $   (5.22) $     .27  $     .27 $     .39  $     .39
                              =========   =========  =========  ========= =========  =========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1 


 


AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO SEVERANCE PAY AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO SEVERANCE
PAY AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 7th day of August, 2022 by and between CyberOptics Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (the
 "Company"), and Jeffrey A. Bertelsen (the "Executive").


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Executive are parties to a Severance Pay Agreement dated as of May 19, 2008, as subsequently amended as of May 18, 2009 and clarified
as of December 31, 2011 (the "Agreement"); and


 


WHEREAS, in accordance
with the parties’ intentions and shared understanding, the Company and the Executive would like to clarify how the amount of severance
pay should be calculated pursuant to Subsection 4(ii) of the Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:


 


1. Amendment. The first
sentence of Subsection 4(ii) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: "The Company shall pay as severance
pay to Executive a lump-sum cash amount equal to the average of the gross annual base salary and gross annual cash incentive bonus paid
to the Executive in the three calendar years preceding the calendar year in which the Change in Control occurs; subject, however, to the
restriction that the Executive shall not be entitled to receive any amount pursuant to this Agreement which constitutes an "excess
parachute payment" within the meaning of Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or any successor provision
or regulations promulgated thereunder."


 


2. Continuation. Except
for the amendment set forth in paragraph 1 above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without change.


 


	CYBEROPTICS CORPORATION	 	EXECUTIVE:
	 	 	 
	By  	/s/Subodh Kulkarni	 	/s/Jeffrey A. Bertelsen
	 	Subodh Kulkarni, CEO and President	 	Jeffrey A. Bertelsen
#### In the Matter of Jacqueline Golda, Appellant, v Lillian Radtke, Respondent. In the Matter of Lillian Radtke, Respondent, v Jacqueline Golda, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 843]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered May 18, 2012. The order, among other things, adjudged that petitioner-respondent, Jacqueline Golda, is to have three visits per year with the subject children.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed insofar as it concerns the oldest child of petitioner-respondent and the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent mother (petitioner) commenced this proceeding seeking to modify visitation with respect to her four biological children. Respondent-petitioner (respondent), petitioner’s sister, has custody of the children, and she in turn sought to reduce petitioner’s visitation. Following a hearing and an in camera interview with the children, Family Court granted the relief sought by respondent and reduced petitioner’s visitation. Initially, we note that any issues concerning visitation with the oldest child are moot because she is now 18 years old *(see Matter of Woodruff v Adside,*26 AD3d 866, 866 [2006]). There is no dispute that there was a sufficient change in circumstances since the prior order, and thus the issue before us is whether the court properly determined that the best interests of the children would be served by a change in visitation *(see Matter of Robert AA. v Colleen BB.,*101 AD3d 1396, 1397 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 860 [2013]). “ ‘[T]he propriety of visitation is generally left to the sound discretion of Family Court[,] whose findings are accorded deference by this Court and will remain undisturbed unless lacking a sound basis in the record’ ” *(id.).*Here, we conclude that the court’s determination has ample support in the record. Respondent, who supervised petitioner’s visits with the children, testified that petitioner did not regularly avail herself of the opportunity to visit the children despite an order allowing her monthly visitation. Respondent further testified that, when petitioner did visit with the children, the visitation was a negative experience for the chil*1379dren. Finally, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court “gave proper weight to the children’s wishes which, although not controlling, must be considered, particularly where, as here, the children are of sufficient age to articulate their needs and preferences to the court” *(Matter of Lozada v Lozada,*270 AD2d 422, 422 [2000]). Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,124
<INVENTORY>                                     38,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,068
<PP&E>                                          77,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 162,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,772
<BONDS>                                         34,884
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     26,156
<COMMON>                                         5,207
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   162,670
<SALES>                                        184,070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               184,231
<CGS>                                          127,207
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,667
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,291
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97


</TABLE>
* 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. 95-50592 Conference Calendar

__________________
BILLY DALE CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BECKY WALDRUM, Nurse, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-94-CV-949

- - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Billy Dale Carter appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Nurse Becky Waldrum. Carter lists four issues for appeal; however, he has failed to provide legal arguments sufficient to brief the issues he wishes to raise for appeal. Carter's conclusional allegations of error by the district court are insufficient to provide this court a basis for review of the judgment. See Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995); Andrews v. Collins , 21 F.3d 612, 632No. 95-50592 -2- (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 908 (1995). Because Carter has failed to brief any issues, his appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. The district court warned Carter that he could be subject to sanctions if he persisted in filing frivolous lawsuits. We caution Carter that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Carter is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Edwin G. VILLALONGO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-6827.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 14, 2005.

Decided Oct. 14, 2005.

Edwin G. Villalongo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Edwin G. Villalongo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Villalongo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                             180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,318
<ALLOWANCES>                                       168
<INVENTORY>                                     13,081
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,065
<PP&E>                                         114,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,236
<BONDS>                                         29,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,283
<SALES>                                         69,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,650
<CGS>                                           58,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,916
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,222
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (324)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (324)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,834]


Boise Cascade, LLC, Elgin, OR; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 20, 2009, in response to a 
petition filed by an Oregon One Stop Operator on behalf of the workers 
of Boise Cascade, LLC, Elgin, Oregon.
    The petitioner requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13456 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P