alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
flay 10 05 0l:OBp RAPPORT AND PlflRSTON 

u ..- -. - ,- 

OZI-A SOW200 'd 918-1 BQOUCOIOI 9801ZE9ZOZ*ld QO: I I 50-ZD40 -.- .-- -. - 

Received 05-1 0-05 15:53 From-707 462 4235 To-2026327066 Paoe 003 
2. On February 17,2005, the NlGC i& Notice of Vidttion NO. NOVQS43 to 

the Tribe re)arina ta the Hopland Sho-b-wab Casino's submiion of the 

qwfly starema~t and fio psymsnt to the NIGC fin rhc quarter ending 

D-ba 3 1.2004. 

3. Raha than dest the issuab of the timelinosg of the submissionof the sataxnt 

2nd k, & Tribe w tb~ tw and etiops set forth in this Settlema 

Apuaea 

4. The Tribe aggws to pay a he in tbe amount of h Thbusand do- o). 

Eight Hundred dolbrs 00) oftha tba Ziac be paid on on b&e Jme 30,2005. 

TbE reanairing Two Hundred &llm (e200) will be suspended pmdtng rk timely 

submission of thc quarterly sraranem and fic paymen! for tha qmer ending Junc 

30,2005. Upon timely submidm of the qw statemcot and fcc paymuat fbr 

the Hopland Sw-ka-wah Cask firr rh6 qwrter ending J\me 34 1005, rbc 

ChairraM will fargive the suspmdcd TWO Hrmdrcd dollar (%200) fimc. If the 

Tnbe fl& to bxibad the Hopland Sb+ka-wah qumrdy statement and fkc 

p;rynrcat by Jlmc 34 2003. Ux remaining Two Rwdred doUw ($200) of the fine 

will be paid on or Won Augua 34 2005. 

S. TheChaiamarr~upon~oad~s~alrlmwai.~ethsri~to 

impase my furehw civil fine fin Notice of Violatiern No. NOV-0593 -st the 

=be, tmless he Tnbt fiik to annply with this Agmemat. If* Tribe =Is to 

comply ~5th ?his AfzrcmmnL the Chairman resew= Bc ri&t to initiate an 

-cnt &6t Hapbd Shbh-w?h Clxim as oUUM t5 

C.F.R 6 573.6. 
6. Tk Tribe agrees upon cxcnrrion of this to waive its right, if any. to 

further twiew ofNdce of Violatim No. NOV-05-03, inc- all fiat6 to 

to tbe SUl Cornmissiop es outlined in 15 C.F.R. 4 577 ei seq. and judicial 

rcview pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 0 2714. 

7. subscqucru to &e panits' acceptmce ofthis Asreement thc civil fine asscssmm 

set forth hcrein'vtill beanne a Find Asscsspa- Order of the Commissiaa. 

ADDI'fl[CINAZ. COYQYGPXS 

1. This Agreement constiartrr thc & ogreanent behvan rbo Cluinnan md tbe 

%be nnd supenedcs all prior verbal or wrS.ften apxmtnts and uadersrandinp 

meen rbe parties dated u, the djd znaacr heraaE No wanmties, 

repreceatatr'o~~, me. oramczncnrs shall bc Wag; xapon any pvry except 

as set fbrth hmh. Any modifidon or waiver of any tam of rhis Agccmcnt, 

iocludhg the modification or waivu of term, must be in writing '4 dgncd by 

both parties. 

2- The Tni stipulates thm rbc Notice of Violnth shall bc deanad a hnal order of 

tlae CommScm and a final agency a~tion pursuant to 25 C.F.R 1 577.9(d). 

3. Tbc Chairman amd tha Tribe uqwdy ape and ackmw1cdgc that timt is of mc 

essence in this Agreemart 'Ihe redeals hacm and above set aboll ba bindiag 

upon * parties, their agents, heirs, peasonal rewmtadivff, sucwsm arrd 

assigns. 
shall be c~ive and bhd~ fbr pm-porr of rhc ~&ceyd. / 

mission 

.s/\\ /@s 

Date
Exhibit 32

 

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Itronics Inc. (the Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on August 15, 2005 (the "Report") each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.

 

Date: August 15, 2005                          /S/ JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                               John W. Whitney

                                               President 

Date: August 15, 2005                          /S/ MICHAEL C. HORSLEY
                                               Michael C. Horsley

                                               Controller

42
Document

Exhibit 4.15


AMENDMENT NUMBER NINE
TO THE
TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
TAX-DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN
WHEREAS, Telephone and Data Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted and maintains for the benefit of eligible employees of the Company and certain subsidiaries of the Company the “Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Tax-Deferred Savings Plan” (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently amended and restated, effective as of January 1, 2014;
WHEREAS, the Company desires to update the membership of its Investment Management Committee, which committee oversees the investment of the Plan’s assets and has certain other responsibilities with respect to the Plan, to reflect recent leadership changes at the Company; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan accordingly.
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 14.1 of the Plan, effective as of August 1, 2019, the definition of “Committee” set forth in Section 2(10) of the Plan hereby is amended to read as follows:
    (10)  Committee.  The Investment Management Committee of the Company, consisting of the Chief Executive Officer; Chief Financial Officer; Vice President Human Resources; Treasurer; and Vice President, Financial Analysis and Strategic Planning of the Company, or any successors thereto.  References herein to the Committee also shall include any person or entity to whom the Committee has delegated any of its authority pursuant to Section 10.3 to the extent of the delegation.


*     *     *     *     *









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment Number Nine to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 23rd day of July, 2019.
						
	TELEPHONE AND DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	/s/ LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr.
		Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Vice President Human Resources
		
	By:	/s/ Daniel J. DeWitt
		Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Vice President Human Resources
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS CLASS II - AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***AUDIT AND ACCOUNTING (AAA)***

Page 2 of 9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,712
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,977
<INVENTORY>                                     11,973
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,290
<PP&E>                                          62,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 489,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          208,870
<BONDS>                                        305,097
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         12
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,563)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   489,186
<SALES>                                        295,234
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               295,234
<CGS>                                          259,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  259,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (76,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       433
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (76,516)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (76,516)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.77)
        

</TABLE>
rmed-ex101_6.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 



 

 

Brian Conn



 

 

Dear Brian,

This first amendment to the letter agreement dated May 27, 2022 (the "Agreement") sets forth the terms and conditions whereby you agree to provide certain services to Ra Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), and All terms of the Agreement remain the same except section 2 and 3.1 are replaces in their entirety with the following effective July 27, 2022:


	
 
	
2.
	
TERM




The term of this Agreement shall continue for a period of twelve (12) months from the new date July 27, 2022, instead of May 27, 2022, that both parties signed this Agreement, unless earlier terminated (the “Term”). You or the Company may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, effective immediately upon written notice to the other party. The parties understand and agree that the Term shall renew (the” Renewed Term”) for successive one (1) month periods on the expiration/renewal date(s) of this Agreement only if mutually agreed to in writing by both parties.


	
 
	
3.
	
FEES AND EXPENSES




3.1The Company shall pay you at the rate of $10,000 $20,000 per month for the Services. It is mutually agreed that you shall expect to work between ten twenty and fifteen thirty hours a week with a limit of $100 200 hours in any calendar month.

If this letter of the amendment accurately sets forth our understanding, kindly execute the enclosed Amendment No. 1 and return it to the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

Ra Medical Systems, Inc.

 


	
BY:
	
/s/ Will McGuire
	
 

	
Name:
	
Will McGuire
	
 

	
Title:
	
C.E.O.
	
 




 

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

Brian Conn

 


	
BY:
	
/s/ Brian Conn
	
 

	
DATE:
	
8/10/22
	
 




 

 

Federal Tax Id. No./Social Security No.: 

 

 

2070 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92011•Office: (760) 804-1648 • Fax: (760) 804-1657

Info@ramed.com • www.ramed.com
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g ar i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2009- CR
- 6566, s t y l ed S t a t e o f T ex a s v. Ja so n M i ea rs, in th e 3 7 9 th J u d ic ia l D istric t C o u rt, B e x a r C o u n ty, T e x a s , t h e H o n o ra b le R o n R a n g e l p re sid ing
. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 9- 00 71 3- CR IN RE J ason M IEA RS Orig inal Procee ding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 11, 2009 PETI TI ON DEN I ED On Novembe r 2, 2009, relator J ason Miear s filed a pe tition entit led “Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto” in which he c omplains his appointed couns el h as fa i led to provide him copies of dis c ov e ry re c e ive d b y

his cou ns el f

ro m th e State . H e a sk s th is c ourt to i ssu e a

wr it t o f or c e his appointed counse l to furnish him with copies of all discover y . A writ of quo wa

rra nto is an ext raor dinary

reme dy us ed t o d eter

mine disputed questions about the prope r person entitled to hold a publi c off ice a nd exercise its functions, or to question the exis tence of a public corpor ation or di strict and it s rig ht to act. State ex re l. Angelini v. Hardberge r ,04
- 09
- 00 71 3- CR

- 2- 9 3 2 S
. W
. 2 d

4 8 9 , 4 9 0 (T ex . 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g State ex. re l Jenne tt v. Owens , 63 Tex. 261, 270 (1885)) (per son holding public of fice ); Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. L azy Nine Mun. Util. Dist. ex re l B d

. o f D i r e c t o rs , 198 S.W .3d 300, 310 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied) (spec ial-law
mun ic ipa l ut ili ty

wate r dis tr ic t)
. Re lator ’s pe tit ion is w ho lly unre late d to the iss ue s f

or wh ic h a wr it of quo wa rra nto is available, a

nd there fore is an improper ve hicle for obtaining the relief soug ht by relator. Even if we interpre t relator’s p et i tion as a petition for wr it of mandamus, he is still not entitled to relief. T his court’s wr it power is limited to is suance of writs nec essar y to enforc e our jurisdiction, writs of habea s corpus in civil ca ses, and wr its o f m an d am u s aga inst a (1) judg e of a district or county

court in our district, (2) judg e of a district court ac ting a s a mag istrate at a court of inquiry in our district. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 22 .2 21 (V e rn on 20 04 ). Re lator ’s re qu e st ha s n o r e la tio ns hip to o ur jur isd ic tio n, ari se s o ut o f a c ri min a l c a se , a

nd is dir e c te d a g a ins t hi s appointed counse l, not a judge as desc ribed in that statute. Ba sed on the for eg oing, w e deny relator’s petition. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
.

PER C URI AM

DO NO T PU B L I SH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          284197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   356167
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     805393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1467773
<PP&E>                                          399208
<DEPRECIATION>                                  204287
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1668794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           103164
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2485
<OTHER-SE>                                     1546293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1668794
<SALES>                                        1129688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1136615
<CGS>                                           806556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   408148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (78089)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (80109)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (80109)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Unique Smith, Appellant, v Malcolm R. Cully, Superintendent, Collins Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 906]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), dated August 6, 2012 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

*1317It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner’s appeal from the judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been rendered moot by his release from custody upon reaching his maximum expiration date *(see People ex rel. Baron v New York State Dept. of Corrections,*94 AD3d 1410, 1410 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 807 [2012]; *People ex rel. Kendricks v Smith,*52 AD2d 1090, 1090 [1976]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply, inasmuch as the alleged error he identifies on appeal is not likely to recur, the alleged error is not one typically evading review, and the appeal does not involve any substantial or novel issues *(see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  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:  February 22,      2010 |   | /s/ Carrie L. Majeski                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   | Carrie      L. Majeski, President, Chief Executive Officer(principal      executive and financialofficer) |

----
#### Lynne GUILLOT, a single woman, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. POTLATCH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-35234.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 27, 2006.

Filed Nov. 8, 2006.

Jon Howard Rosen, Esq., Frank Freed Subit *&*Thomas, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric Karl Peterson, Esq., Clements Brown & McNichols, Lewiston, ID, for Defendant-Appellee.

*643Before: GOODWIN and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR,* Senior Judge.

*

 The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Washington’s choice-of-law rules require us to determine whether there is an actual conflict between the laws *of*the two jurisdictions and, if so, which jurisdiction has the most significant contacts with the case. *Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co.,*123 Wash.2d 93, 864 P.2d 937, 940-41 (1994). There is an actual conflict here, because Idaho, unlike Washington, requires that a plaintiff lodge a complaint with the state human rights commission before filing an employment discrimination suit. *Compare*Idaho Code Ann. § 67-5908(2), *with*Wash. Rev.Code §§ 49.60.020, 49.60.230. Idaho has the more significant contacts with this case: Plaintiff is domiciled in Idaho and most of the actions giving rise to the complaint took place there. Assuming that the relevant portion of the state appeals court opinion in *Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co.,*66 Wash.App. 510, 832 P.2d 537 (1992), remains good law, it does not require a contrary conclusion, because defendant in *Burnside*was incorporated in Washington, whereas defendant here is incorporated in Delaware. *Id.*at 544. Washington’s interest in *Burnside*was obviously greater than it is here.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 3.2

# AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS OFBANDAG,
INCORPORATED (Adopted November 11, 2003)

On
November 11, 2003, the Board of Directors of Bandag, Incorporated approved an amendment to
Section 6 of Article IV of its By-Laws which deleted the following sentence from such
Section 6 of Article IV in its entirety:

| | He
shall be ex officio a member of all standing committees, other than the
Audit Committee and the Management Continuity and Compensation Committee, and shall see
that all orders of the Board of Directors and resolutions of the Board of Directors are
carried into effect.
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### CHECKER CAB MFG. CORPORATION v. CHECKER TAXI CO. et al.

Civ. A. No. 1251.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Oct. 8, 1942.

William A. Rneeland, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Damon E. Hall, Joseph P. Sullivan (of Hurlburt, Jones, Hall & Bickford), and Charles J. Innes, (of Innes & Cottrell), all of Boston, Mass., for defendants.

SWEENEY, District Judge.

The defendants have filed seventy-nine interrogatories, many of which are subdivided into several inquiries.

The plaintiff objects generally to all interrogatories, except 51 to 54 inclusive and 76 to 77 inclusive, on the ground that they are grossly irrelevant and are drawn for the purpose of harassing the plaintiff.

The objections filed are sustained on the broad ground that they are too numerous and seek too many details. The matters covered by the interrogatories, if relevant, could be inquired into through oral depositions. The use of interrogatories should be discouraged where, either because they are too numerous, or because of the nature of the inquiries themselves, their use would result in a vexatious burden or oppression on the adverse party. See Coca Cola Company v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 275, 279, in which, quoting Professor Sunderland’s article in 42 Yale Law Journal 875, 876, the court stated: “Where the facts to be elicited are relatively few and important, whether ultimate facts or evidentiary facts, the legal machinery of interrogatories is a very useful, expeditious and inexpensive method; but where they are very numerous * * * they tend to become unduly burdensome, oppressive and vexatious to the adverse party and difficult for the court to administer.”

The plaintiff’s objections are sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LAMAR P. OGELSBY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 601 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.