alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(p)

 

[TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION LETTERHEAD]

 

January 25, 2013

 

Gary Ruff

 

Dear Gary:

 

This letter will confirm your role transition from the position of Senior Vice President, General Counsel to the position of Senior Vice President, Physician Resources effective January 28, 2013.

 

As Senior Vice President, Physician Resources you will report to Britt Reynolds and be responsible for all activities associated with Tenet’s physician strategy, physician practice management and physician recruiting. Your annual base pay and annual incentive plan target will remain unchanged with this transition. As discussed, we will recommend to the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, a 2013 long-term incentive grant with value of $500,000. In addition, we will recommend a $350,000 career grant that with five year vesting — this is intended to motivate your retention during the building and growth period of our physician resources function. Subsequently, all future grants made under the long-term incentive plan will be based on market data commensurate with your role and performance. For the purposes of compensation, you will be considered a senior operations leader, with internal peers including the regional senior vice presidents and other senior operators and with compensation oversight by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.

 

This role transition does not constitute “Good Reason” as defined in Article II, Section 2.1 (x) of the Tenet First Amended and Restated Executive Severance Plan (“ESP”). Accordingly, this move is not a basis for a Qualifying Termination as defined in the ESP. However, this does not exempt you from the benefits of the plan if there is a Qualifying Termination for other reasons including a change of control situation.

 

Your employment with Tenet will continue to be on an at-will basis, which means that either you or the company may terminate the employment relationship.

 

Please sign below to acknowledge receipt and return a copy to Paul Slavin in Human Resources Department by January 28, 2013. Thank You.

 

Sincerely,

 

	
/s/ Cathy Fraser
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Cathy   Fraser
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Senior   Vice President, Human Resources
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Cc:
    	
Trevor   Fetter, President and CEO
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Britt   Reynolds, President — Hospital Operations
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Paul   Slavin, VP Executive and Corporate HR Services
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Acknowledged   and accepted:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Gary Ruff
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
1-25-13
    
	
Signature
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-3Nos. 333-61940 and 333-66982 and Forms S-8 Nos. 333-54932,333-53970, 333-43334, 333-105215 and 333-124777) ofSonus Networks, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2005, except forNote 2 relating to fiscal year 2004, as to which the date is August 1,2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Sonus Networks, Inc.included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Sonus Networks, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, MassachusettsAugust 1, 2007

----
NUMBER 13-18-00523-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE SHANE MATTHEW BUCHEL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

Shane Matthew Buchel, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in 

the above cause2 through which he contends that the trial court erred by failing to 

“consolidate restitution.” Buchel argues that the trial court incorrectly allowed the 

collection of restitution for multiple cases according to each individual judgment and its 

corresponding order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account cases, even though 

 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 15-11-12,328A in the 24th District 

Court of DeWitt County, Texas. The respondent in this original proceeding is the Honorable Kemper 

Stephen Williams. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2. 
2

the restitution was ordered in connection with concurrent sentences. This Court 

requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the State of 

Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney for DeWitt County, Texas. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a),(b). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of 

mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re Shane 

Matthew Buchel, No. 13-18-00509-CR, 2018 WL ___, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 

Dec. 6, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication), available at

http: //www.search.txcourts.gov/case.aspx?cn=13-18-00509-CR&coa=coa13. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). We 

likewise deny Buchel’s motion for nihil dicit judgment.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

6th day of December, 2018.
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

I, Dr. Moshe BenBassat, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Clicksoftware
     Technologies Ltd. (the "Company");

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
     of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
     defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and
     have:

     a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
          end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
          and

     c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date:  April 24, 2006


/s/ Dr. Moshe BenBassat
Chief Executive Officer
#### Gina Fulmore et al., Respondents-Appellants, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 905]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) the defendants New York City Transit Authority and David Zoilo appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered November 3, 2004, as, upon a jury verdict finding that the defendant David Zoilo, a bus driver for the defendant New York City Transit Authority, was 70% at fault in the happening of the accident, the defendant Joseph Fontana was 20% at fault in the happening of the accident, and the infant plaintiff, Gina Fulmore, was 10% at fault in the happening of the accident, and awarding the infant plaintiff damages in the sum of $1,250,000 for past pain and suffering, is in favor of the infant plaintiff, Gina Fulmore, and against the defendant New York City Tran*660sit Authority, (2) the defendant Joseph Fontana appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same judgment is in favor of the infant plaintiff, Gina Fulmore, and against him, and (3) the plaintiffs cross-appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of the same judgment as failed to award the infant plaintiff, Gina Fulmore, damages for future pain and suffering.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The verdict as to liability was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, and accordingly, will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence *(see Corcoran v People’s Ambulette Serv.,*237 AD2d 402 [1997]). Furthermore, the damages awarded to the infant plaintiff for past pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

The plaintiffs’ contention is without merit. Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FDS for fiscal year 10K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,014
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,415
<INVENTORY>                                    174,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               264,461
<PP&E>                                       1,201,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 385,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,343,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          162,294
<BONDS>                                        375,680
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                     611,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,343,968
<SALES>                                        935,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               935,401
<CGS>                                          845,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  845,449
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,815)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,769)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,050)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)


</TABLE>
Hillel I. Parness 

Ronald M. Daignault (pro hac vice) 

David Leichtman (pro hac vice) 

Oren D. Langer (pro hac vice) 

Matthew B. McFarlane (pro hac vice) 

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 

601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 

New York, New York 10022 

Tel: (212) 980-7400 

Fax: (212) 980-7499 

hiparness@rkmc.com 

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Novel Laboratories 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, INC., 

 Plaintiff/ 

 Counterclaim-Defendant, 

 v. 

NOVEL LABORATORIES, INC., 

 Defendant/ 

 Counterclaim-Plaintiff. 

 

 Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-01341 (PGS) 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

Motion Date: Nov. 5, 2012 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 1: 

NON-INFRINGEMENT 

BASED ON CLINICALLY 

SIGNIFICANT ELECTROLYTE 

SHIFTS 

To: All Counsel of Record 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Novel Laboratories, Inc. 

(“Novel”) hereby moves this Court on November 5, 2012, for summary 

Case 3:11-cv-01341-PGS-LHG Document 140 Filed 10/03/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 3862
 2 

judgment of non-infringement based on clinically significant electrolyte 

shifts. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this Motion, 

Novel shall rely upon its concurrently-filed memorandum of points and 

authorities, the concurrently-filed statement of material facts not in genuine 

dispute pursuant to L. Civ. R. 56.1, the concurrently-filed declaration of 

Novel expert witness, Dr. David S. Goldfarb, and the concurrently-filed 

declaration of Matthew B. McFarlane with exhibits attached thereto. 

Also enclosed herewith for the Court’s consideration is a proposed 

Order. 

October 3, 2012 

New York, New York Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Hillel I. Parness 

Hillel I. Parness 

Ronald M. Daignault (pro hac vice) 

David Leichtman (pro hac vice) 

Oren D. Langer (pro hac vice) 

Matthew B. McFarlane (pro hac vice) 

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 

601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 

New York, New York 10022 

(212) 980-7400 

(212) 980-7499 

hiparness@rkmc.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Novel Laboratories, Inc. 

 

Case 3:11-cv-01341-PGS-LHG Document 140 Filed 10/03/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 3863
 3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 3, 2012, I caused the foregoing 

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 1: NONINFRINGEMENT BASED ON CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT 

ELECTROLYTE SHIFTS, together with supporting papers, to be served by 

ECF and e-mail upon the following counsel of record: 

Leda D. Wettre, Esq. (lwettre@rwmlegal.com) 

ROBINSON, WETTRE & MILLER LLC 

One Newark Center, 19th Floor 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

John J. Regan, Esq. (John.Regan@wilmerhale.com) 

Christopher R. Noyes, Esq. (Christopher.Noyes@wilmerhale.com) 

Anna E. Lumelsky, Esq. (Anna.Lumelsky@wilmerhale.com) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 

60 State Street 

Boston, MA 02109 

 /s/ Hillel I. Parness 

 

Case 3:11-cv-01341-PGS-LHG Document 140 Filed 10/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 3864
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jametrius Laquan JUDGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7584.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

Jametrius Laquan Judge, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jametrius Laquan Judge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4978 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to condition 

the payment of employer prescription drug subsidies on the maintenance 

of current prescription drug benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004 

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to condition the payment of employer prescription 

drug subsidies on the maintenance of current prescription drug benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prescription Plan 

5 Preservation Act of 2004’’. 
2 

•HR 4978 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CONDITIONING THE PAYMENT OF MEDICARE EM2 PLOYER PRESCRIPTION DRUG SUBSIDIES ON 

3 THE MAINTENANCE OF CURRENT PRESCRIP4 TION DRUG BENEFITS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–22(a)(2)(A) of 

6 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–132(a)(2)(A)) 

7 is amended to read as follows:: 

8 ‘‘(A) ATTESTATION OF ACTUARIAL

9 EQUIVALENCE TO STANDARD COVERAGE.—The 

10 sponsor of the plan provides the Secretary, an11 nually or at such other time as the Secretary 

12 may require, with an attestation that the actu13 arial value of prescription drug coverage under 

14 the plan (as determined using the processes and 

15 methods described in section 1860D–11(c)) is 

16 at least equal to the greater of— 

17 ‘‘(i) the actuarial value of standard 

18 prescription drug coverage; or 

19 ‘‘(ii) the actuarial value of the employ20 ment-based retiree health coverage that 

21 was in effect as of December 8, 2003.’’. 

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

23 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact24 ment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 

25 and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173). 

Æ
905 A.2d 877

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JACKIE A. TERRY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 8, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1240 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1240

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count resident time 
    spent in a critical access hospital as resident time spent in a 
nonprovider setting for purposes of making Medicare direct and indirect 
                  graduate medical education payments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 30, 2019

  Mr. Tester introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count resident time 
    spent in a critical access hospital as resident time spent in a 
nonprovider setting for purposes of making Medicare direct and indirect 
                  graduate medical education payments.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Rural Residencies Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. COUNTING RESIDENT TIME SPENT IN A CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL AS 
              RESIDENT TIME SPENT IN A NONPROVIDER SETTING FOR PURPOSES 
              OF MAKING MEDICARE DIRECT AND INDIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL 
              EDUCATION PAYMENTS.

    (a) GME.--Section 1886(h)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395ww(h)(4)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``subparagraphs (J) 
        and (K)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (J), (K), and (L)''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(L) Treatment of critical access hospitals.--
                Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or 
                after July 1, 2020, such rules shall provide that a 
                critical access hospital (as defined in section 
                1861(mm)(1)) is deemed to be a nonprovider setting for 
                purposes of determining the hospital's number of full-
                time equivalent residents under this subsection.''.
    (b) IME.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(iv)(II) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(iv)(II)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following sentence: ``Effective for discharges occurring on or after 
July 1, 2020, for purposes of this subclause, a critical access 
hospital (as defined in section 1861(mm)(1)) is deemed to be a 
nonprovider setting.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### *Ex parte*Calvin Goodell.

ALBANY,

August, 1817.

A peremptory in stance, lies to a county who refuses to record a deed present-that purpose, ¡!®®”leddug';[d *¡¡® ^‘eTce’rchancery i0Jdgment°kn=nÜ identity of the led“thereon.°r*

*TALCOT*moved for a peremptory *mandamus*to be directed to the clerk of *Madison*county, commanding him to record a deed from *John Fiske*to *Calvin Goodell.*He read an affidavit stating that the deed, which was for certain lands in *Madison*county, had been duly acknowledged, and the grantor identified by the oath of a witness before a master in chancery, who endorsed the following certificate on the deed: “ State of *New~ York, Onondaga*county, *ss.*On the 11th day of *April, 1817,*came before me, *John Fiske,*the grantor within named, (identified to my satisfaction, by the oath of *Michael Underwood,*to me known,) and acknowledged that he had signed, sealed, and delivered the within deed for the uses and purposes within mentioned. I allow the same to be recorded. *Sanders Van Rensselaer,*master in chancery.” That the deed, with the certificate of the master in chancery thereon, had been presented to the clerk of *Madison*county to be recorded; but that he refused to record the same.

To show that a *mandamus*was the proper remedy in this case, *Talcot*cited *Davison*v. *Thurston and others,*(2 Hen. *& Mun. Reports,*132.,) and that the acknowledgment was sufficient, he cited *Jackson ex dem., Reilly and others,*v. *Livingston,*(6 *Johns. Rep.*154, 155. *157,*158.)

He said that the *mandamus*ought to be peremptory, in the first instance, because, on an alternative *mandamus,*the clerk could return no excuse for not recording it; and if the grantee waited the result of an alternative *mandamus,*his rights, in this deed, might be endangered, or entirely lost, by a subsequent deed being put on record in the mean time.

*Per Curiam.*

The acknowledgement of the deed, and the certificate of the master, were sufficient. Take your rule.

Rule granted.